Skip to main content

Full text of "[Decisions of the Commissioner for Trademarks] / Commissioner for Trademarks."

See other formats






U.S. Patent Office. 

_Rx parte Marshall J. Kinney. 

Trade-Mark for Canned Salmon. 

Petiti on. 

Application for registration filed June 26, 1895. 

Messrs. A. H. Evans & Co. for applicant. 



This is a petition taken from the examiner's refusal to 
register as a trade-mark for salmon the symbol "Rosebud." The 
examiner's refusal is based upon the fact that the applicant is 
trying to have registered two symbols in one application, the 
representation of a rosebud and the word rosebud. The essential 
features of the application are set forth in alternative forms. 

In refusing registration the examiner was follov/ihg 

precedent, although some of the cases turn on the question whether 

the Word and the figure are true alternatives. It seems that the 

trade-mark as offered is, so far as appears, a lawful common law 

mark, and where the prescribed statutory requisites are present, it 

is thought that the administration of the law should be reasonably 

liberal concerning registration. 

I incline to adopt his view, and the petition is granted. 

John S. Seymour, 
August 3, 1895. Commissioner. 

T-»r.-J^ ^ 








o . 




























































No. 17,228. 

U.S. Patent Office. 

Lown V. The Ohio Coffee & Spice Company. 

Trade-Mark for Coffee. 



Appeal on Motion. 


Application of Wm. G. Lown filed May 17, 1895. 

Application of The Ohio Coffee & Spice Co. filed May 10, 1895. 

Mr. Prank T. Browning for Lown. 

Mr. Frank G. Pullington for The Ohio Coffee & Spice Co. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner of 
trade-marks refusing to dissolve the above entitled interference. 
The essential feature of Lown's application is said to be the word 
"Capitol". The essential feature of the application of the Ohio 
Coffee & Spice Company is not said to be the words "Capital Coffee" 
and a group of American flags at each end thereof. 

It is true that the marks as shovm are different, but it 
is also true that "the short phrase between the buyer and seller" 
would be essentially the same, as the difference in sound be- 
tween "Capitol" and "Capital" is too small to be noticed by the 
ordinary purchaser. 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks is affirmed. 

S. T. Fisher. 

Assistant Commissioner, 
now Acting Commissioner. 

August 24, 1895, 


April 4, 1895, 


U.S. Patent Office. 

Ex parte Roasted Cereals Co. 


Trade-Mark for Roasted Cereals. 


Application for registration filed October 28, 1892, No. 42,907. 

Mr. W.W.Hoover and Messrs. Poster & Preeraan for applicants. 

The Roasted Cereals Company, the applicant for the regis- 
tration of this trade-mark, transferred all its rights, privileges, 
good-will and trade-mark to the Catskill Mill Company, and abandon- 
ed the application in favor of the Catskill Mill Company. This 
latter company requested that the certificate of registration of 
the trade-mark issue in its name and that the goverriinent fee paid 
by the Roasted Cereals Company be applied to the registration of 
the mark in the name of the Catskill Mill Company. 

Upon the refusal of the chief clerk to grant the request 
to transfer the fee, this petition is taken. 

The chief clerk based his action on the decision in the 

case of ex parte Coventry L'lachinist Company, 59 O.G., 1923; C.D.j 

1892, 137, on the ground that to transfer the fee, as requested in 
the present case, would be practically the same thing as refunding 


it after an application had been filed and fee paid for this trade- 
mark by the Catskill Mill Company. There is no law for refunding 
fees in trade-mark cases and the practice of the office is clearly 
against the return of the fees, except where the fee has been paid 
by mistake, which is not the case here. (See, in addition to the 
case cited by the chief clerk, the cases of .ex ^^rte McDaniel & Mor- 
row, 54 MS. Dec, 161, and _ex parte Zwack & Co. , 55 MS. Dec, 158.) 

But the question here is not one of refunding a fee or 
transferring a fee from one application to another, there being 
only one application under consideration. The sole question is one 
of issuing a certificate of registration to an assignee. In fact, 
the petition itself now contends that it does not ask for a return 
or transfer of the fee, but that it may be allowed to intervene in 
the proceedings and become as a matter of record, as it is in fact, 
the real petitioner; in other words, that the certificate of regis- 
tration issue to the Catskill Mill Company. 

The Catskill Mill Company is the assignee of the original 
applicant and to grant this request and issue the certificate to 
this company would be a clear violation of Rule 16 of Trade-Mark 
rules, and the practice of the office as indicated in _ex .£art_e Spin- 
ner, 35 MS. Dec, 15; ex part e Bassett, 55 O.G., 997, and ex parte 
Sheehy, 56 MS. Dec, 32. 

If it is the desire of the interested parties that a cer- 
tificate of registration issue to the Catskill Mill Company, the 



said company should file an application In its own name and pay the 
required fee. 

The request of the petitioner that the certificate issue 
to it is denied. 

S. T. Pisher, 

Acting Commissioner. 
September 7, 1895. 

'il'i: '. m 






























































Frank P. Hendley 

Decided August 27, 1895. 

Recorded Vol. 57, p. 407. 

Fisher, Assistant Coinmissioner. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner of 
trade-marks refusing to register the word "Cloverdale" as a trade- 
mark for canned fruits and vegetables. The refusal of the examiner 
was based upon the holding of the Supreme Court in Columbia Mill 
Co. V. Alcorn, 65 O.&., 1916, CD., 1893, 672, to the effect that 
"merely geographical names cannot be appropriated and made the 
subject of an exclusive property." 

Geographical names may, for convenience, be divided into 
three classes: First, those that are well known and in common use, 
such, for example, as United States, New York, San Francisco, &c. 
The lav/- is settled that \vords coming under this class ought not to 
be registered. The second class includes words which in their 
primary significance are not geographical, even though they may 
appear in the Postal Guide or similar publications. Such words 
as Trilby, Creole, Puritan, Voliiiiteer, are good examples of this 
class. These words, it seems to me, ought not to be refused regis- 

tration on the ground that they are geographical, since it cannot 
be said that they are "words in comnion use as designating locality 
or section of a coiintry. " The third class would logically occupy 
a position between the two classes mentioned above, and it con- 
sists of words which primarily have a geographical meaning, for 
example, terms ending or compounded with such v/ords as city, town, 
shire, mount or mont. This class would include such words as Lake 
City, Charleston, Hampshire, Vermont. Such words, I think, should 
not be registered, for the reason that they are clearly geographi- 
cal in their primary significance, even if it cannot be said that 
they are v/idely enough known to come strictly under the first class. 

It seems to me that the word in question, "Cloverdale, " 
clearly comes under the third class, and the decision of the examin- 
er refusing registration is therefore affirmed. 

September 6, 1895. 

U.S. Patent Office. 


Ex parte Frank P. Harned. 



Application for registration filed June 25, 1895, No. 49,462. 

Mr, J. Walter Douglass for applicant. 

This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner 
refusing to register the words "Astringent Pencil" "applied to the 
article in the form of a stick". 

The examiner has refused registration on the ground that 
the words in question are descriptive. The applicant claims that 
the article upon which he wishes to use the trade-mark is a stick 
or cylinder and not a pencil, because it is not tapered at the end. 
I find, however, that the term "pencil" is commonly applied to medi- 
cal preparations regardless of the fact whether such preparations 
are to be in the form of cylinders or of cones. For example, on 
pages 281, 1669, and 1723 of the fifth edition of the National Dis- 
pensatory, published in 1894 by Lea Brothers & Co., in Philadelphia^ 
a copy of which is in this office, the word "pencil" is used as 


applied to cylinders. 

The decision of the primary examiner is therefore 

S. T. Fisher, 

Actinr.; Commissioner. 
September 7, 1895. 






































































September 10, 1895. 

U.S. Patent Office. 

Ex parte James H. Spencer. 

Trade-Mark for Plug Tobacco. 


D. R. T • 

Application for registration filed April 22, 1895, No. 49,023, 

Mr. James L. Norris for applicant. 


This is a petition from the decision of the examiner of 
trade-marks refusing to register a mark for plug tobacco consisting 
of a "pictorial representation of the head of an Indian surmounted 
by a croT/n of feathers, and the words 'North America' arranged in 
a curved line above the head of the Indian", the said trade-mark 
being stamped in the plug of tobacco. 

The examiner has refused to register this mark on the 
ground that the words "North America" are geographical and that 
the head of an Indian has been previously registered to Musselman 
& Co., No. 6,588, September 17, 1878. It is clear that the words 
"North America" have a geographical significance and cannot there- 
fore be used as a trade-mark. Applicant's mark, however, consists 
not in these words alone, but when used in connection with a repre- 
sentation of a head of an Indian, This representation of applicantfe 


mark is shown in the reference cited, and although it is not the 
sole feature of either, yet it appears to me to be a prominent 
featiire and one liable to cause confusion in the mind of the ordi- 
nary purchaser if both marks were in common use. Applicant has 
laid great stress upon the fact that he stamps his mark upon a plug 
of tobacco, while in the reference cited the stamp is attached to 
the plug or boxes containing the tobacco. It is believed, how- 
ever, that the manner of applying a trade-mark *- o the goods does 
not confer registrability on trade-marks not otherwise registrable. 

The action of the examiner in refusing to register the 
mark is therefore affirmed. 

There seems to be another reason for refusing to register 
the mark. If the tobacco is not known by the name of "Worth Amer- 
ica", as applicant contends it is not, these words in connection 
with the representation of an Indian head placed on the tobacco 
would seem to give the name of "North American Indian" to the 
tobacco. This being so the ordinary purchaser would be under the 
impression that the tobacco was grown or manufactured by the North 
American • Indians or that these p^iople were in some way connected 
with the tobacco. If such is the fact then one of these Indians 
has as much right to it as another, and neither applicant nor any 
one else has the exclusive right to use said symbol as his trade- 
mark. If, on the other hand, the North American Indians are in no 
way connected with the tobacco, the mark is used deceptively and 
should not be registered. 




































o ui 
^D to 




























U.S. Patent Office. 

Ex part e Charles H. Langdon and George G. Batcheller. 

Trade-Mark for Corsets, 


Application for registration filed February 8, 1890, No. 29,824. 

Mr. S. D. Cozzens for applicants. 

This case has been pending for several months and the 
applicants have not urged it in any way although they have been re- 
peatedly called upon to file a brief or make an argument. 
The petition is therefore dismissed. 

S. T. Fisher, 

Acting Commissioner. 
September 13, 1895. 













ts , 


















■ 3 











































Tirfji;t'iij > wa«««JiUit. • 

September 13, 1895. 

U.G. Patent Office. 


Cx parte Charles L. Heinle & Co. 

Trade Mark for Root Beer. 

o Petition, 

Application for registration filed April 2, 1895, No. 48,878. 

Messrs. C A. Snow & Co. for applicant. 
^ — 

This is a petition from the decision of the examiner of trade 

marks refusing to register the letters "O.K." as a trade mark for 


' root beer. 

The examiner's objection is that the symbol is descriptive, 

out it seems to me that it has a sufficiently arbitrary and fanci- 
ful significance to warrant registration. 
4 The decision of the examiner of trade marks is therefore 


Acting Commissioner. 
September 13, 1895. 




September 13, 1895. S.E.T 

U.S. Patent Office. f.fAK,/ 

Ex £art;_e John Yung, Jr. 

Trade-Mark for Weather Strips, 


"^ Application for registration filed iiay 8, 1895, No. 49,116, 

\ Messrs. C. A. Snow & Co. for applicant. 

This is a petition ta:-:en from the action of the examiner 
of trade-marks refusing to register the words "Common-Sense" as a 
trade-mark "for weather strips. 

The examiner's objection is that the words are descrip- 
tive; that their indicate "the character of the article as being 
well adapted to the particular use or purpose for which it is in- 
tended^ and constructed according to common sense principles or 
good judgment". 

The position of the examiner seems to me to be correct 
and his decision is therefore affirmed. 

S. T. Fisher, 
Acting Commissioner. 
September 13, 1895. 








































































September 13, 1895. S.E.T 

U.S. Patent Office. 

Ex parte Clarence K. Bowman. 

Trade-Mark for Spiritous 


Application for registration filed January 16, 1895, No. 48,27."^., 

Mr. Frederic B. Keefer for applicant. 

This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner 
<5 of trade-marks refusing to register the words "Cedar Valley" as a 
trade-mark for spiritous liquors. 

This terra it seems to ;ne clearly comes under the third 
class of geographical terras mentioned in ex parte Hendley, 72 O.G., 
1654, and' the decision of the examiner of trade-marks is therefore 

S. T. Fisher, 

Acting Commissioner, 
September 13, 1895. 










































































October 2S, 1895. S. K. T. 

U, a. Patent Offlco, 

gx p^jft^ Liicien K, Brunawig. 


Application for registration filed April 9, 1895, No, 48, 916, 

Messrs. Munn & Go, for applicant. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner 
of trade-marks refusing to register the word "Argyle" as a 
trade-mark for bitters. 

The examiner's refusal was based upon the holding 
that the word "Argyle" is a geographical terra in common use. 
It seems to me that this position was correct and the decision 
of the examiner is affirmed, 

S. T. Pisher 

Acting Oonimissioner, 
October 25,1895, 






October 4, 1895. 

b , Jli* X . 

U.S. Patent Office. 


Ex parte DeMoville & Co. 

Trade-Mark for Perfumery, &c, 


Application for registration filed May 13, 1895, No. 49,146, 

Mr. James L. Norris for applicant. 

This is a petition from the examiner of trade-marks re- 
fusing to register the v/ords "Crushed Roses" as a trade-mark for 
perfumery, &c. 

The examiner's refusal was based upon the ground that the 
words in question are descriptive, or that If not descriptive, they 
are deceptive. The applicant contends that in view of Stoughton v. 
Woodward, 50 O.G. , 1297, and American Fibre Chamois Co. v. De Lee & 
Dernberg, 71 O.G., 1458, registration ought to be granted. 

In the first case cited, it was decided that the words 
"Cough Cherries" when used as applied to a confection were not de- 
scriptive of the qualities of the article, but were sufficiently 
arbitrary and fanciful to be appropriated as a trade-mark. In the 
latter case a similar decision was rendered as to the words "Fibre 


It seems to me that a natural inference that a purchaser 



would draw from the mark "Crushed Roses" as applied to perfumes 
v/ould be that the perfume in question was made by crushing the rose 
leaves and obtaining a perfume therefrom. If such were the fact, 
the mark ought not to be registered on the ground that it is de- 
scriptive; but t'-^.e applicants say that this is not the fact, that 
they manufacture a variety of perfumes all under the general name 
of "Crushed Roses", such as violet or heliotrope perfumes, and that 
if a perchaser should enter a store and ask for crushed roses per- 
fume, he would inunediately be asked which variety of crushed roses 
perfume he wished. The applicant therefore contends that the mark 
is fanciful and arbitrary. 

If perfumes had never been made from roses, I should 
hold applicant's position to be sound, but as rose leaves are one 
of the commonest sources from which perfumes are manufactured, it 
seems to me that the term "crushed roses" would be deceptive as 
applied to perfumes made from violet or heliotrope. I do not think 
that the cases cited are on all fours with the present case. 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks is therefore 


S. T. Fisher, 

Acting Commissioner. 

October 7, 1895. 



































































October 25, 1895. 

S. E. T, 

U.S. Patent Office. 

Ex parte The Success Remedy Company. 

Trade-Mark for Medical Compounds, 


Application for registration filed June 18, 1895, No. 49,420. 

Mr. Jas. J. Sheehy for applicant. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner of 
trade-marks refusing to register the word "Success". 

The examiner has refused registration on the ground that 
the word is a "descriptive and advertising term" and therefore pub- 
lic property. 

It seems to ine that the position taken by the examiner is 
correct and his decision is therefore affirmed. 

S. T. Fisher, 

Acting Commissioner. 
October 29, 1895, 





































^^ ■ 


• 4=^ 































October 31, 1695. 

U.S. Patent Office. 

Ex part e Lord & Taylor. 

Trade-Mark for Gloves. 



Application for registration filed April 24, 1895, No. 49,034. 

Mr. Van Buren Hillyard for applicant. 

This is an appeal taken from the action of the examiner 
of trade-marks refusing to register as a trade-mark for gloves the 
phrase "The 'Formosa' Doubly Woven Finger Tips." 

The examiner holds that the phrase "Doubly Woven Finger 
Tips" is descriptive, especially as the structure is covered by a 
previous patent. He also holds that the addition of the word 
"Formosa" to the phrase quoted above cannot confer registrability 
upon a trade-mark because it is a geographical terra. The appli- 
cant contends that "Formosa" has a meaning apart from its geograph- 
ical meaning, such as beautiful. He also contends that the use of 
quotation marks and the article The emphasizes this distinction. 
It seems to me, however, that the use of quotation marks would not 
render a mark registrable that is otherwise objectionable. For 
instance, if the trade-mark in Coltimbia Mill Go. v. Alcorn et al. , 





65 O.G. , 1916, had been The Columbia Mill Co., with or without 
quotation marks, the court would have reached, in my opinion, the 
same conclusion. 

The decision of the examiner is therefore affirmed. 

S. T.. Pisher, 
^ Acting Commissioner. 

l^'overabor 4, 1895. 

•:,i -v^-' 














t-^ a 




1-3 O 
O tf^ 





03 Ht^ 


O W 










U.S.Pat en t Office 

Hec.VoJ 50,p.l5J, 

Ex parte Henry B.Smith 

Trade *t<> r' fbr Flour 


Petit ion. 

icatlon for relstration f i j «1 I'.ey 20,3895, Mo.49.22] 

Vf .I)u i s K . U ] J son f or a ppj i can t. 


Thds i. .-, petition taken from the action of th 

e exami ner of 

nark» renting tore.l«er the , or an -Better th» Best- aa 

a t,-i. mark for n„r. l-ne examiner baaeChis r.f„.a: on B,e 

-".a mat me phra.e in ^..tlon Is SoBcriptlve. t fir=t 

this tjectlo. .ee.s to b. a pro,,^ one.but *« .josely scrutlniz- 

ea U|»uja .een that if fla ph„,e were Intenae. to oc^vey the 

impression that app3 1=ant'a fao„r 1. ..etter than me best flo„r, 

it wvld be meamnglesa. I think v-.e>x:for^ th,t f!- . ^ 

'^--v-iure mat the phrase in 

.«est:,on.„hne p.haps . ., ™, be con^ldere. partla... descriptive, 
_="n ha, a fanclfu. an. arbl.r.r, sl.lfl^tlon an. the <le=Ulon 

° -^' the examiner la Iher ^fo 

""e reversed. 

S.T.Pisher Ass '..Cora. 


9omo jn. 


im8.'! ^^ns^' 9:t*iBq xi3 

nxjor^f tcft ^^^'^'^ 


, (c,';^e^.oM,«e3C,os. 

a oil B t^'- 

Jn&o's. Lqq 



1c ten irn-.x-' ^' '" 

,soi;J^)-e erO 

rc9 Tifi.) noiJ iJ9"? ^- 

) liB": 

.-t^ Jsti-i .:)vtJqi-to8«>i' 

-r.xntJr/ios ^ites' 

T£)r,o-iq r 

/sv not: 

,3i scroti s*3n' 


; LLstJ-Tia^- 

,. -r- 'v.-.o ed yfli*i 


p x# ■.■■ »' * ^^ 





U,S,P«tent Of G ce 

affirm fid. 


Ex parte S. It Davis & Oo, 

Trade ?ferk for Cigars. 


Peti ': ion 

AppM"eation for registration fiJ ed JuJy 23 ,1895, No, 49620 

Mr. Stephen J. Cox for applicants. 


"Ht is ia an app*^! taken frcn the action of the examiner of 
trade marke refi'sin," to re^-ister a trade mark con si s tin r^ of the 
words "nilvar Club" and a ^roiip of four h'jeds, 'Oaese heads repre- 
sent foxtr cxmgressmen noted for tTieir- advocacy of free silver. The 
examiner holds thar the consent of each of these four congressmen 
mxzt be obtained before the trade m? A can be regis tered, citing 
various authorities. 

It is true th-^t in the application the essential foaturee 
of the trade rn'?.r*: a;-e said to be*a group of heads and the words 
Silver Club". 'iliG f^ c similes furnished.howev er, shew the portraits 
of four ccngresfinen and their n?ST!es. It mi-bt be possible that 
some one of the four v/aild object to the use of h irs port m it in 
such •=. connection, an u unless the l-isads wei*e portmits of distin- 
ruished advocates of free sll ver, the tjotus "Silver Club" v/ou Id 
lose thfiir significance and it is questionable \sh ether these wjrds 

of thanselves would constitute a valid trade •nark. 


. nf) -A » f 1 

o^ 1x1 





>i?S3 Jt tr. 


■u?v It: 

It seems t o me that the position taken by thrc; cataniner is 
correct and his decision is affirmed, 

r,,T.T?ishar , 

Act ing Corrmiss loner , 

no?; Assis tant Oommi sk loner. 

December 30,3 895, 


8 i '19 n ir.'.33X 


.rf.vi50 9<l 

tj JL 

riov.l2,3*J9ft. j/^, 

U.S.Pat ait Of fl ce. /- 

Ex parte Hold Loaf Raking Powder no. 

Trafle Vnrk for Pakinft Vomler . 
■ t the iixm 

^Qtlt ion. 

vinii ^o tior^ riled JiOy 29, 3^95, Mo .49643 v^ ^-i^-^-. i/c/v.,vy c ^ / /^ 


Messrs. L.i?«.r'ger ' 'o.for applicant* 

This i'' " Me tit ion talker from i-:-3 action of '~'*^'r- a xa miner 
refusir.2 t^ r«s:ir>ter the words *'?o]d Leaf" as 3r>!'lisd to baking 
powder. 'Die exarniner refused registration on nccamt of t'-ie trade 
mark re-" icter ed to the Elliott Baking Ponder Oo'^pany,Ko. 25,778, for 
the Bsrv^ c1-':j (jT n oo ds ,.-hw inr. the •:Vorris "r^il ver Leaf" and a 
p icture of a 3 eaf . 

The exai^iner holds that the marks ore so n'^nrly alike that the 
ordinary pnrc'-'aser would be deceived. The applicant contends 
th'T t there is s s^^fficient distinction betvAJon the %t) rd.s "pold" 
and "silver* to prevent ccnfusion. It is apparent that in sound 
the phi*as9,s "^olcl 1 en f and "silver leaf" are c J early distinguish- 
able. 1', is to be noted, howev er, that a ftic simile of applicant's 
mark ir; i-rusented showing the words "^.old Leaf and '•^--'^ pictrir's of 
a leaf. Upon being ro.iected upon trade in ark ?To.ii5,778,appl i cant 
afncntisd hir, c?^se by cutting oi' ;, ihe picture of the 1 eaf , thor eby 
practically admitting that the mark which h e h -xi actually used so 


gjT sq x3 



19 r^ 

** *■* r/^- ^ frrr '■ 

ij so Hqc * 

, .p'T.-^se" 



T nv- 9r? j 

nn i: & T o 

3V Mb" 

.0 r.rf; 


nearly resembled the rerriatered mark that tYe one mirht be nistaken 
for the other. It is to be presumed that if re^is.ration is jcxacxiSi 
granted, the applicant will still continue to use the label subnit- 
ted. 1 think therefore that the exfsniner'a position is corracr. 

and his decision is affirmed. 

S.T. Fisher 

Acting Commissioner, 

Now Assistant Commissioner. 

Janupry 2,189G. 

im ono arfJ 

^m i» 31 srfj fioCdfoeaGrt xtissn 

tier 8 t tiw inRotiqqB ar^i ^boSner 

• .f .fte 


>lat&0b si ri fine 

, lenoi: e 8 iRjrnoO gm 3 o A 

,ae8t,S- Y*iri/rrsT. 


Jan. 2, 3 896. 

U.S.Pat ent Office 

7 -".d ^"i.}': ^n'-'i? 


Kx pai^te North Dakota Milling Oo, 

Trade »feirk for Hreakfaot ?;'oods,et c, 

Peti tion, ^ . ^ . 

• is appixoatlfc 

Application for registration fi3 ed ^fay 20,3895, No. 49, 2]7. 

ori/:^:in'^J J y >/resuntod- it >«:■■■ :.":--■■■':■ •' 

veaars.lifunr! • f^o.for appJicant. 

to rioirr ,;t '■.;»- t*;1 ■>.:». The word ■flou. ■ 


This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner. re- 

fusing to register the worus "Or earn of riieat" as a trade mark for 

■ ;'r;i .•, .-<r i r >> ^- ■■ ' ' ■:^ '5 fJov.'" «"! .1 bre fo(,)d8 as bo ior:'*!!? t.c 

"breakfast foods, crack ad «lieat, wheat Frit3,MTeat fsrina , purified 

Tho examiner's refuse] is based upon the reasons that he cen- 
tre ait i' as t f 00- ■ ■ ■ 

aiders the phmse in question to be descriptive smd that it sh,ou Jd 
not he registered in view of trade marks No.<£ 4181, to Engelke and 

!^einer,>Jov.]4,3876,No.9487,The Cereals Mfg. Co. .June 27,1082, and 

,)-,•. ;v- ■ ;■ ■(,:•...',,;■ •i:-:i'^v, -at ■ • - of t.h<: -<> '-H In c,- ;r:; I ;..r- , 

>ro.l2954,Feywood 5^ WiJ J issms, Jan.19,1886, The appJicsnt iirr^es that 
the words "nr earn o f "'heat" are not descriptive. I am inclined to 
consider that this phrase means either that the best part of the 


wheat is used or tliat the best wheat is seJected for use. As to 
the trademarks cited by the examiner, it seenB tome t}Bt. IYb 
closest one is t^at to TTeywood ?.- Wi]3ijima. ihis is a trade mark 
for wheat flour en^ it is stated t hs t tho essential feature of the 


©oi'i'^n :rro JB«T, 

,or' rnJt nil!' eio AbC[ 

.VLS.ei'.oT^.aeBC^n'. ;» en. nol iBiJsl-!\Qi io1 noUnoitqqA 

.J HBoi Lqqe • -- . • 

-9'i lonincxe "to not iot noil fioj(aJ no; si siriT 

."grti iJjDXn 

ir-.'oss9'i 9r':r nocjf fiocsed si £«etr'io vrjjtrpexe yrfT 

;! f.oi >fiR ovtiqliQBi. aolJeeup tfirfq erf:t cit>bi8 

^lai* S-J*.;" kMipitt sbc-ij laij^Qt ed Jon 

fina«S8l3t,VS 9n(fL,.o0.sT; elBsiaOoriT, : , i t.voK.iianxe'!^ 

vijqitoaafc jo - ' Br)TO'* arfJ 


oow^i/ oaots 

mark is the phrase "Crfam of the Wheat". The applicant admits 
that this wo^iM prevent ifefi;istra tion if it were applied to break- 
fast foocis,but contends that the fact that Heywood and Williams 
applied the phrase "Cream of the Wheat* to flour oug+^t not to 
prevent its being applied ty other applicants to different classes 
of merdnauiclise. Ii is sirrnificant that in this application as 
originally presented it was stated that the trade mark was applied 
to flour among other things. The word "flour" was renoved by 
amendment. It would seem to be ccnclusive frcsn these fects thnt 
the applicant regarded flour and breakfast foods as belonging to 
the Game class of merchandise. Even if it had not been stated 
in the original application that the trade mark was applied to 
flour, I should still be of the opinion that breakfast foods in- 
cluding cracked wheat, wheat grits, wheat, farina, &c, are so nearly 
allied to flour that the previous registration to Heywood ^ Wil- 
liams would prevent refiiistration of the mark in question. 
The decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

S.T, vosh er. 

Assistant Oorfmiasioner . 
January 2,1 ?;9G. 

ertfiiCEiV' joowtjoH jch 

aavaalo Snoi^lli -.irwotlqf 


. noi^B 

'to rPjjs'iO* senrfq ertJ si 3liiBm 
^bne^ rroe :Tyd,8boo^ iesT 

,0 X* b9i tqqo anisd e:t £ ^tnaveiq 

tft ax r . 98 rbnerbrrsm 1o 


^vieulorjoo ed oJ i^ea 6lr/ow Si .Jnardbnamg 


vS .osiJbncrfmsrt *io safiCa ernea €iH:t 


■ otvdiq e 

tot Jft'lJSi 


[ti-le btworfe I,nr/otl 

-i D 

icroC't oi beiliB 

09b srlT 


itobftr IG, 1B95. 

. Patp.nt Office, 

3. h\ 7. 
EX part. T,e.l.U e. Miy,,^,to. (X^^UU. ^k^Ac?^^ 

Tr«de-v,rK for DlBinfoctunts. 


Application for refi^istratlon fi.l 

ed June 26, 1895, No. 49,472. 

?^r. L. W. serrell for aprlioHnt. 

TM« i. H petition t..t .he fee in the ..ova entitle, ca.e 

'^^ ;"^^"'^' ^"'^ ^^^^ ^'^'^^-- ^^ "^^o-<i ^0 prosecute . 

•-ipilication filed h-,r \\c--^ ^^^ 

x.Aea Dy \ii,r decoas^rl husband. 

Ifc appears that thoro waa a forner ar t i .. 

tion which hun not yet bo-n rr-r.^- -^^ 

>c--n ,,r.ntud. After tho death of t.he 
c?int, his wifo whn ,-, „ 4 J 

wl-.-. Who ..n in i.norunce of such «pplicntxon, fn .d t^e 

present ^.plication, it se.^ns U) -> ^v.t -i 

o -^ -^at tni3 wufl done by inist^ike, 
and in accord.'inf*o wi*-;- fu^ 

"^' ^ho vae.n set forth in ex p,^ pi„i,,,,,, 

^ '"' ■• -^-^^»^01,it i. directed that the 

foe bo rot,^ned, .-ind to this extent the pf^titi.-. i 

.no petition is firunted. 

npon r.Hkin.p; in the nrovi,---^ i , ^4 

' ''^1' Implication a proper showing that 

""■■i.n.nt i,-? rho adn:ini3tratrix nf +v,-^ ^ 

^'^ix of tho forrnor applicant, .,he wiu 

^'^.Uo.od topro«ocut. .id application. 

October 1 ;,i ofi. 

3. T. Fisher, 

Act ing Cornmif;:; i jnor 


. xa 

,^^pj.^j,-, •^o'J nol^i*t)iI<I<lA 

vonio' '*'" 

j. RlffT 


r : -j\i=r.iXqcj*< .l»rid i>nii J>on-txf 


on m«fi rfoirfw noi^J 

t\v air' 




U. S. Ptitent Offico. ^ „ 

nioholus V. Thttrp, 

Trade -?.^irk for Whiskey. 

Apnaal from Kxaninor of Interferences. 

App).ioation for registration filed by Geo. 5. Nicholas Tiecerabor 2G, 
l'-54, Trade-l?t4rlc resist erad to jHrnas Th«irp, Jttn,:7,ia90,HO,lV,a{SG. 

]^^s/>r8. 3.,J^#,-, *i;,^^>, T.jjlJowurd for WiphpluH, stt Nl- 

^fessrs, L. B«p;ger & Co. for Tharp, 

This is an upptvd from tho decision of the examiner of inter- 

rV't ion to "•'''^ '^y T'h*; rp on 

ftirnnces udjudicatinf; priority in favor of Nicholas, The siibject- 

^ . „ niv.a ^■:r/iitv or i'lichea; what ho hH;> 

mntter of the intv^ ference is u trade-aark confiisting of the word 

•Herkaley*' as 'applied to whiv-jkey, 

Thurp is -i i-egistrant and stands upon his record d'itG,Octoi)er 

in, 1889, having taken no testimony, Kven if ho sho.dd be ,3iven 

-,'- • bcnefii. of his aatt; liOi^tion, Soptombor l,lobb, il; would 

H'ive no iaffoct upon the final decision. 

Prow ' ': ' ' ' ■-any pr .se/itcd by Nicholas it appears that ho 
w'is formerly a member of the firm of Purdy fe Nicholas, a morcfintilfe 
firm in !-I«v/ York cmi^^agijd in the sule of wines and li*iuor.':;t,hat 
among the floods placed by theai on the ciarkot whs a rye v/hiskey to 
which thoy attach t:.e brand "Berkeley;" thit thio brund vris 

.dopted by thon irly as June, 1879, and continuously used in 

"'cir businev^j) as a trade-murk until nhe dissolution of tho firm in 
SeptQrabt;-;r,1888, and that Nicholas continued in hi (?■ OT/n. naaw the 



t ■ > 

■-: mo-iJ 

.oaije . 


i^T. o.-t hi' 


:/' i)ti-- 

;-(,t mo 

.-•nqij nf' ?.l slff] 


.^rix arf.r lo ts.tit. 

x/f to .tnenod 

0..: ^c.' 

;10 «t' 

liJnxr 3ti 


MtfliY weff i^ 




Dxisineas of the firm, and in such business hur, continuously usod 
the trHde-mrk in isnuc to clQsicnate a certain whiskey sold by hira. 
It further appears that Purdy, the former rartnor of Nicholas, who 
by the toms of dissolution entitled to use nny trade-mark or 
dftsicn belonfiing to the copartnership, has never exercised his 
right to use the word "Berkeley" in connection trith whiskey and has 
since nsr.Xf^ned r.nch right to Hicholus. It thus appeurs that Nicho- 
Itis ir-; entitled to rc.-^istrat ion as agtiinst Tharp, 

Accompanyinc the appeal ir, a laotion to dissolve by Tharp on 
the croxmds that Tlicholas has been guilty of laches; that he has 
not iji-.v,'> an/jHged in "for(;i:r];n commerce or commerce with Indian 
tribes," and that the aark "Berkeley" is a geographical n^me, and 
;- r.uch is not registrable. 

The first point has not in ray opinion been established, and 
the second ha;-> b^en substantially denied by me in thti fact of find- 
ing for Tlicholns. 

Th.i \..' point, tH\t the wj rd "Berkeley" is u i^eo-rr^iphical 
nnndi sooms to me to be -ffeill taken. I think therefore that rocis- 
tration shoilci be refused to -Mchcl-is for this roHSon. 

The decision of the exiyainer of interferences adjudicating 

priority in favor of Tlichol' 


'. Fishor, 

Auf;ust ^7,1895. 

Assistant Oonr-i 8.-51 oner , 
now Acting Oomraissicner, 


busif vLfiuoualSnao sort ?»R»niaad rfoua nl Jbn^; tiail" 

TO silwaj-abi; - o anno:^ tin? yi' 

aJtrf h*>al^•^: ^qirfBto'rt.^tKqoo ;>rf^ o;t anJtanoXod n7\i'=^'*o 

-orioilf iBjfi attf&qqa B,uii: .sulorfol .^ 'rf3l"« rfo.i oonlc 

no q-THrC!? Yfi oviogalb oJ nolion » el X;-'-.'q-8 f^r^t T^nx^rnisqwoooA 

bm^ tt>ra'n ItJoiriq ■odlt* 

,;jIdB-t;tF:l7\rj-t .ton ai rfaur. Bi;^ 

bn*. tberici • Iqo y: on aeri jfixoq .;f8'; 

-.;•.(■.!.' /f Xni.-^n. .tsdira ^i;:^ bnonoa i.\ 

r fi'fp. riOl.^JE*-! 

7}ni .tij;; 

■ X,-. ^c: 

Jan, 15, 1896. H. ^. T. 

n , 7/V/ 6-f O^ 2 o~ U. S. Patent Office. 

Ex purte The Mellwood Distillory Company, 

Trade-Mark for' Mstilled Liquors. 

Petit ion. 

Application for rejr^istration filed Juno 25,1895, No, 49,464, 

r'r, Thos. 'j. Hopkins for applicant. 

This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner 
refi-sing to register the word "Runnyraede" as a trade-mark for 
whiskey. The examiner's rofiisal is based upon the ground that the 
word in question is a geographical teng. Ex parte TJendley,7r-; O.G., 
1G54, It seyms to me, however, that the vTord in question can hard- 
ly be considered a well knovm geographical name and that its romaxi- 
tic significance is far greater than its geographical significance. 
Ex parte Indiana Bicycle Company, 72 O.G,, 1G54, 

The decision of the examiner is therefore rcverBed, 


Afisi stunt Oonimis iongr 
j"anuary 18,1896. 


' t -■■'■■ .oi' 

01 noi.tBoilq, 

"i6r'.f -(.iv 

noi ;tr 

tot 2f•I3aI-6joe^ . ' "^-"''^ 

^ noi 6X0 Ox. ei-f^ 



'^^ -ft^^^ V-,. ,^^ 


' ' M.H, 2 

U. S. Patent Office. 
Ex parte Achille Starace, 

Trade-Mark for Oils, 

Same, """ -iie o. company, 

Petiti on. 

Application for registration filed April 15, 1895, 

it ion of 3 "up o'rT f. f any colors; the 

Mr. L. ?^ Serreil for applicant. 

This is a petition from the aatiofi, of, ji^^e^ examiner of trade- .,^ 
marks in refusing registration of a devi^^ jC.onsisting of an eagle 
resting upon a globe with a branch and leaves at each side of tj^v©j^,,^ 
globe, and the word "Aquila," applied to food and relishes, and 
particularlyjip oils for table use. The element-^ Of ^thiistradem 
mark have generally been arranged as shown in the fa c - simile form- 
ing par.^,. 0^1"- the application, which represents rays of light radiat- 
ing from the globe, and the word "Aquila" within. an prnamentji^_..,j^g^ 
border below the glabe, but the applicaot-i .stajte^, that,., thesev;;l^;t— ,.^^ 
ters may be varied at pleasure without materially affecting., tlje 
character of his trade-mark, the essential feature of which is the .. 


I, representation of an eagle upon a globe, wi,thj_^ bjr^nch- and leaves 
at each side of the gjobe, and the word "Aquila," 

t.i A, Registr.^tion was refused, by the examiner upon reference to the 
trade-mark of the American Cotton Oil Company, of New York, No, 
23,776j,.^ rpg^stfred Octobef:,,31, 189§, which,. consists of ,the .pepif^r- 
. sentation of an fta,TiftWith outstretched winffs resting upon a globe 


.^ol^i'lL -^ .P .U 

,90B-fB;t8 allirioA ei'inq xK 

,cl«38I ,cll li-xqA balii no'-^---';: -rol noiJBoilqq. 

.^JnBoxIqqts 10I Ilstias .w .j ,i] 

-9l)BT;t 10 tsnxmexe 9ri" lo noi:foii edi motl noxctxd-eq js ax sirfT 
elgBa as lo anx^faianoo eoivab b 1o aoi:}sii3i:Q3t ■gaieutQi nx a3l-iJBf 
3tii lio abie rioae iB ssvbqI bcm rioriijicf s ff:fxw scfolg e noqir §nXjE 
bni? tasrlaxXsi Lns bool 0.^ bsilqqB ««Flx0pA'' b-xow 9rf;t baB «9cfoI; 
-ebBict sxri.^ iO Birisrnal© g riT .asx; elafc^.'- -nT axio Oo Yl-xisljjo i -^- 
-rtnol 9Xiffll-3 - oBl ecii ai nworis as bgsnBi'xs n99d ^ILBiene-g evuci jIibe 
-cfBibai Jrij^xl 'to sY^-x Sousag-iqa-i rfoirlw «noi;r:-..: . 4^, arid- lo ct-iBq ga^ 
iB^tnefflBn-K .uriixw "eXxirpA" blow ocii bne ,9Q'oIr? 9rid ffioil gnJ 

-;JSI 9B9i;. _„ ss^bJ'r -^ : ,au;. ■ . - ■ / • 

9r{j gnx:J39llB ^iIIbIis j'-6fl! isjoAiivr 9Ti;3B9lq :iB beliBv 9d \Bm at 

srivf ai ,•,.■-... 10 91; ,.,. :; , ;[iBra-9bB'i.t alrf lo 

S9VB9I bnB rionBic' b rf:fx\v ,900X3 ^ noqjj sXase njs lo nox.+B^nsagiq; 

"•■-'-'-■■!-' ' '■^-'•' ^ii" un;..' ,^uuL3 sri^t 'to t^bxa rl0JS9 :t£ 
9rf;t o;t 9onsi9l9T noqxr •xsnxraBxs 9ri;t vd bgairlo-i sbw noi.tstcfgxsgfl 

■'■ *<^ t " ■ :iB0ii9r.tA 9i-{;t lo jfTBra-sbBtc) 

-.■i-:q-( ari:r lo a^taianon rioiriw .SQBX ,XS i9do:^o0 bsiscfalseT ,6VV,fi2 





and grasping branches of^ th.G ,,cat ton plant. The fac-simile present- 

■" ^: ^'-.tTivlt,..i feature is tYrr-r-— ^.tat. io^ 

ed in the reference ; shows in .addition to the eagle, globe, and 

cotton branch above described, an oval beaded border surrounding 

ii s >! i n jj f <i a t ur e o f wp p ?, , ... 

the same, and upon the face of the globe the name of the company, 

Ji> '.c :i- :;v^ Cdgio 

The trade-mcirk illustrated and 

4§scrib§4 may be in one solid color 

• ae'-3 ;:;)e tranchet; '-f -n ^ cotton 

or in a combination of colors upon a background of any colors; the 

" ' -• -"--i'- ;.; caiM-Q aceesso- 

cotton branches may be represented varipusly, as for exaraj)le in the 
bud, in the boll, or full grown. Variations in the position of the 
eagle upon the globe may be made, without departing from the es- 
sential character of the trade-mark, the essential feature of v/hich 
was alleged to be the representation of an eagle with outstretched 

wings, resting upon a globe, and grasping branches of the cotton 

IS tra'Se *.!,>•; iciently 

o be wistakor. , r,;,,-; 
tlnff 'Another reference is produced by the applicant himself, the 

ctrade-mark for olive oil of Cusimano Brothers, No« 15,459, regis- 
tered May 15, 1888, consisting of aii eagle in conjunction with the 
words "Olio D'Olivia Sopraffino Di Lucca,". In the latter case 
these ^Yere generally arranged as shown in the fac"sim.ile accompany- 
ing the certificate, the eagle being placed in the center with 

wings open and feet resting on a twig, with the word "Sopraffino" 

'^^■^'- deceive deaie- 

placed in near proximity to the head of the eagle. Just under the 

♦twig on v^hich the feet of the eagle rest is a blank circle forming 

'lown tr at the 

the lower part of the border encircling the eagle, and other de~ 

vffi th<i 

M^ ,9doIs t9l3S9 9riJ oi noinbbB ni aviroi^a 90x1919^91 9r:.^ ax 
3niDnvoii;r3 laoiocf babijsd Lbvo hb ,b9dxioa9b svocfB rion^icf no 
.YnBqmoo 9ri.t lo smea 9rf:f sdola '^ rii to 9oc^ 9ri,t noqj.^ Dm. ,9nu.3 e 
toloo blloB 9no nx sd ybih bedi-xoaaf) bnj. i,9:tBi;tax/IIx ^i^xn-9bBi:r e 
9rf:t ;8ioIooYns 10 bniroia^oBd ^> noqn atoloo ^0 noi^t^nldmoo ^ ax 
srf^t ax 9lqm.x9 10^ a^ .Ylacroxiav ba^n9a9iq9i 9d ^.bh, 39rion«id nocT.^ 
eri.^ to noi:fx3oq ed.t ..x anoi.^Bli.v .a^oia IIc;^ ^o ,IIod 9rL^ ax .b 
"30 9ri^ moil snx:tiBq9b :fuoxiJxw . ab^m 9d vsm sdolg 9ri:f noqn 9X3 
rioiriw 10 eixrisal lBx.asB.9 sci, ,.IiBM>.ebBi^ enM lo le.^oBiBrfo iBi.n 

b9ri0^01.3.^;.0 rf.XW 9I3B9 HB lo HOX .B.n9a9lq51 erf., ^d oi b^^ellB 3. 

aocf^oo 9rf^ 10 aaxfonBid anxqaBig bnB , e.ols ^ noq.r ^aiiee-r ^agn 

• ^riB. 

em ,-il93iniri :tnBoxIqqB 9ricf ^d boo^bc'.q ai 90fl9ie'l9i i9rf;^on/ 

-3X891 ,ea*-. .0^,1 ,ai9ricfoia onBmxa.;D lo Ixo evlio 10I 3(iBm~9bB" 

erf;t rf^xv. noicronx;Uoo ax elgBs ... lo sax.taxanoo ,3881 .ai ^bM b9i£ 

93/.0 le.^cfBl erict al ".boouJ xa oaillBiqo8 BXvilO'CT 0I.CO" ebio 

-CnBqmoooB elimxe^oBl 9x1. ni aworia 3b beanBUB ^rIIB19a9^ 919^ ea9ri 

ri^xw i9.n9o arf.l ai b90Brq ^^, ,, ,,^,, ,^, , 9:tBoxlx:ri9o odi aa 

"oaillBiqo.« bio. 9rf. d.i. ,axw. B ao snx.391 .99! bnB n9qo a^ai 

exl. i9bn. .S.T. .9laB9 ad. lo bB9d erf. 0. ^.xaxxoiq iB9a ax booBi 

^nxn.i ,, exoiio .I.Bid . ,i ,^91 elsae 9rf. lo .09I 9r(. doldw rto^s^w 

-9b i9ri:fo baB ,9l8Be arict gflxlonloaa isbiod 9d.^ lo JiBa lewol 9ri; 



tails are given, but the essential feature is the representation 
of an eagle with wings open and with feet uJdn^a'^tSl^ *^® resem- 

The examiner considers the distinguishing feature of .ppiil 
canfs device and that of the principal refiM^^i tc/^be the eagle 
resting upon the globe, and considers the branches of 'the^cottoW 
Plant or the olive branch and the word '^mfl^ as mere accesso- 
ries. He JBld the rule to be that the imitation of a trade^mark 
need not be exact and perfect, but llBifed and partial, and r^fied 
registration on the ground that the mark of the applicant Uars''^, 
such striking similarity to the mark already registered to another^ 
as to cause confusion in the trade when used upon the same'g|Sdi':'' 

The petitioner contends that his trade^mark is sufficiently 
different from the references not to be mistaken, and^^^le^ admit- 
ting the rule of the courts to be as stated by the examW, hej^.y 
contends against the state of facts which the examiner considers 
to Obtain in this case. In support of his view the petitioner 
submits the affidavits of a dealer, in one instance, of a broker in 
oils, and Of a manufacturer of canisters, in the same or in a simi- 
lar line Of merchandise. But the rule of'^^^f^vM^' is that in« 

that •■«£!.;. en ano'.fT"r 
fringing trade-marks need not be so similar a^ to deceive deale 


Who are astute to note differences tj^gf^i^fild escape the eye and 

he article /y ! r' , ^y 

attention of the ordinary purchaser. Even werl if shown that the 

dealers positively knew the goods of one of these parties from the 

noi :tB;tn9a9iq9t sri^t ai siir-tBol iBiJassan srii .tijd ^navig sii.; sIxbv^ 

,3iv/J ti nui.j[u ;t93't rfoi.'.» ons nsqo saalw rfcfiw 9l§B6 nB lo 

-ilqqf lo 9isj:iBBt gnirfaxjjgnic^sib sdi atsfiiafloo isniinBxs eriT 

algija edi ^6 o? sonsisle-t Xi3qxo^i:^q sdi lo Jfirio briB eoivab a'JnBo 

no;tooo 9rfc^ lo sarionBid edi 3T9bi8noo bna ^edoL-g edi noqu gnlJaei 

-oaa9ooi} si9m as "sXi-upA" f)iow grid £inB rionyTcf 9vi:Io sdi to :tni;Iq 

jiiBm-gtoid B 'lo noxJB.txfflX 9ri;t ^Brt^t ed of slxrt sdd IjI grf sH ,89it 

bgawloi bns ,lBi:tiBq bns b9d'xnixl ind ,d'09l:.-i9q bnB dsBxg ed ion fjsen 

3tB9d ;tnBoxIqqB odi lo jiiBin 9rf:t .tBrirf bnt/otg edi no no IJeiiaigs-i 

T9ridonB o;t b9T;9d8XS9T Y^i*9i-tB JiiBCi 9f{ ;t oi xiiiBlimts :Qnl-Ai.tia rioxra 

.aboog 9mBa edi noqsj baasj nsriw gbsii sil'd' inx nolawtnoo ezuao oi ek. 

Ylctnexoxllxra si; jtiBin-gbBiJ axri ^Brio abns^noo tsnol^i^feq 9riT 

-ixmbs slxrfy bHB tn93(Bo3Xra ad o:f don aoons'iel9':( sdi moil dneiellxb 

eri ,T9niniBxe sdi vd b9dBda 3b gd od adTiroo grfJ lo bLui edi gntd 

aiebxanoo lenxrrtBxs ^dd rfoirfw sdoBl lo 9dBda edd danJiBas 3bn6dn'>o 

ignoxdxdsq sxid W9xv aid lo dtoqqua nT .93B0 aldi ai nxBddo oi 

nx t93{otd ;.^ 'io ,9onB>tuni eno ax tTSlBSu ... lo adivBhil'iB grid adimdira 

-xfflxa B nx TO 9ms3 grid nx ^^'^si^inBo Jo leiisio&tssnBsi a lo bns «aXxo 

-nx dBrid ax adiuoo 9rid lo olut orid dixa .gsxl-ni^doTera lo gnxl tsL 

^sieiasb 9vi9o9b od 3b iBliraxa oa 9d don b99n asItBrn-sbstd gnisniil 

hm-' e-v.^ ;,.;,; _. i.osa hiijo-w iGd:i asonaiglllb 9don oi ^isjip.G e"iB oriw 

arid dBrid nworia di diev nsvH .isaBrioiuq YtBnxbTO 9rid lo noidnsdde 

9''-' "v -'I aai^iisq e39rid lo 9no lo afcoog srid W9n>I vievxdiaoq a'laLisdv 




other, it would not be sufficient, seeing that the goods are sold 
T,aan v, nerain?, 96 U.S., 24^, 2bl, rhe coiirt say: 

for the purpose of being resold in the market, and that the resem- 

•-<.i; '. '^ c 

\.U .■ 1} L- i V Li ■.• I,-.- .ijl.i 

blance iS'SigrSfe iS t^Hkely t'^ BMih M'Bkh^MtlcHoH^'^kfimVh 

•."-;^<. .\-i. ':■■-' 'iosrto of .i'-^sLice r -^n do, in that rega,!" 

for the other-'by't'he ultimate purchaser, Edelbten v.Edelsten'p'i'^ie 

■J I U - 

G. , J, & S. , 185; coats V. Holbrook, 2 l^nlf.'^Ch., 586. In Seixo 

V, Provezende'I' E.'^'Siv'l Ch, , 192, Lord Cranworth, Chancellor, said: 

"All'^^'hat courts of 'justice cah"Sd' is'to'-'say that no 
trader can adopt a trade-mark so resembling that of a rival as 
that ordinary purchasers, purchasing with ordinary caution, are 
likely to be misled, jt would be a mistake, however, to sup- 
pose that the resemblance must be as would deceive per- 
sons who should see tkxk. the two marks side by side. The rule 
so restricted would be of no practical use. If a purchaser, 
looking at the article offered to him, would nat\irally be led, 
from the mark impressed on it, to sixppose it to be the produc- 
tion of the rival manufacturer, and would purchase it in that 

belief, the court considers the use of such a mark to be ' 


It is not necessary that the li^ole should be pirated. Nor is 

•■ iipveurs ' - ;, ' ^ -^ ■.:'■-■ ■ aoi;-,- ^•.uKine:- '.;■ •■,.;.:-:■ 

it necessary to show that any one has in fact been deceived, Pilley 


V. Passett, 44 Mo., 173, 

•al configurat JO! he 

In Wotherspoon v, Currie,L.R, , 5 H.L, ,508, Lord Chelmsford 

holds the following language: ,, . ^, ,^ ^ 

••Por the purpose of establishing a case of infringanent, 
[^■^is iofnecessary td'show that there has b§^n the use of 'a' 



mark iH all respects corresponding with that which anot^aer 
person has acquired an excli^sive right to use, if the resem- 
blance is such as not only to show an intention to deceive, 
but also such as to be likely to mak6 unwary purchasers sup- 
pose that they are purchasing the article sold by the party 
to whom the right to use the trade-mark belongs," 


bl08 31B 3i)0o§ 9ri^ isrii gnxasa » cfns coxtlwa ad ion blucm :ti ,19 

-rn938i 9ri^ J^isrii^ bns ^iQ^sitsisn orfJ fix blosai ^nled to asoqtisq .nj 

n93iBiaiffl sd o:f 3i^Bm sno srtt saxxBo oi ^XejixX sd o.t aj5 rtoj/a ax oon 

9b 1 jnscfaXabS.v nsoaleba .'lasyrioixrq e.tsmx;tlu orfl ya iGrf:to Qdi 

0XX98 nl .386 j.riO .IbriBS 2 .ioondloH .v a;tBoD [i&L , ,B A •«" 

:blBa ,'ioIl3on8riOtri;riownBTO bioJ. ,261 , .riO I t •JJ •J ,9bn3S9vOT=I 

on :tjiri:f Y^a o;t ax ob nso soi^axri, I0 aitrc.uoo *Brfo IIA" 

BiJ LBvlt B lo :tBrii gnxidraaas'i 03 iliBm-abBi:^ b iqobs neo isbsii 

aiB^Cio'iiisBo xiBaibto rfctxw g^jt3Brio^iJq « an^ai*rio^iJq YT^nibio Jji?ri:t 

-qx/s o:t j-i9V9W0.d <93lB:t3Xin s ed bluov/ ij .belaxin ed oi xLo^liL 

-leq 9vx9D9b blxfov/ as riox;e 9d ;tai/m eoneXdmaaan 9ri:t ctsri^t eaoq 

9lir-t 9rfT ,9bxa yd 9bxa a:rfTBm ow-t ericf Ikj^ 99a bXx/orfa oriw anoa 

tigaBrioixrq a II ,930 XBox;to,viq on ^o od bXwovf beiottis^'t oa 

jbsX 9d Y-T-XBti/^tisn bXjJow ^mxri o:f b9T:9'i^o eXoicfii? 9rf^ cfs anl:IooX 

-ojJboiq 3di sd oi ii gaoqqi/s, od ,ix no b9339TqniX iitjin 9ric^ moil 

tsri^f ni ii gasrioii/q bXnow brte ,^9^i;;JoBlw^BI^ Xbvxt erf:t ^0 nox;t 

9d oJ 3liBai b ricixa lo 93jj adi ai9bl3noo itsjoo adi ,!l:9xX9d 

" ^iaQisjbuBit 

ax TOW ,b9cfi>ixq 9d bXuorfe 9Xox*if grfj ierli \i'iB33909n :ton ex dl 

Y9XXx'5 .b9vX909b n99d ioBl nx asd 9do xnB iadi woria ocT AiiB3a9S9n 

.SVX ,,oM i^^ ,:t;t9aaB'? 

bTOlamXariO bioJtSOfi, ,J.H 3 , ,H .J, gxTtxrO ,v aooq3T9rf:toW nl 

.:9SBx;3nBX gnxwoXXo^ &di zb 

, Jn 91119 ani^/i ax lo 9aBo b gnxiiaxXdBisg lo 9aoqnijq edi lo'-I" 

B lo &zij Qdi n99d 3Bri 9'x9xict Isrfct woria o^* -^leszeoaa J'on ax ^x 

tsd'onB rioxrfw isdi riixw gnibnoqaaiToo a^osqagt XXb ax jltsm 

"m939T 9ric? 11 t98xr oi ctrisii avxaixXoxo as bstiupos 3Brf noansq 

,»vX9o9b o^ nox:tn9jnx as woria o;t ^-tno ioa sb riox/a ax 95nBXd 

-qua aT9acrioTirq xiBwnsj 93fem o.-f yXosIlX 9d oct b» riox/a obXb -txTd 

Y*fBq 9ri:f Yd bXoa oXoxcfTB &di §nX3BrioiJjq gib vsriJ i»di ezpq 

'',asnoX9d jIiBm-sbBid sricf eaw oi ^rigXT 9ri;t morfw o* 



In McLean v, Fleming, 96 U.S., 245, 251, the coiirt say: 

a the msrk! -he goods of the 
"What degree of resemblance is necessary to constitute an 
infringement is incapable of exact definition, as applicableto 
all caseso All that courts of justice can do, in that regard, 
is to say that no trader can adopt a trade -mark, -so resembling 
that of another trader, as that ordinary purchasers, buying 
with ordinary caution, are likely to be misled," 

, In (Jorham Company v. White, 14 Wall,, 511, identity of appear- 
ance in patented designs v;as under consideration, and the court 
passed over the testimony of experts and held that if in the eye' f 
of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a p^'^Tchaser 
usually gives, two designs be substantially the same, if the resem- 
blance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to 
purchase oae supposing it to be the other, the first one patented 
is infringed by the other. 

It appears that the applicant is doing business in the same 
city as the parties in the reference. 

The applicant argues upon the general configuration of the 
border, the size and appearance of the bird, the position of the 
wings, the leaves and details of the branch held by the bird, and 
particularly dwells upon the fact that the word "Aquila" is employ- 
,ed in connection with the present trade-mark, and claims that the « 
ise of that word of itself gives character to the whole device. 

To this I cannot assent, and upon a careful review of the 
liuthorities I must hold that the mark will cause the petitioner's 

:Xis8 i-usoo odi ,IcS ,5^2 ,.3.U 66 ^snxmsl'^ .v neeJoM nl 

fiB Biuiiizaoo o:t ■^iBsasoan si sonsldmssei I'o ^9^§9f) cfsxiW" 
o;reIdiJ3iIqqi> za ^aoiiiai-lab ioms-Q 1o aldijqBonx si ;Jnam9anxilnJ: 
^bTBgst iBri:f ni < ob niso; lo sJtxroo cteri^t IIA «393bo IIb- 
gnxidfflsasi oa j2lTBM-9bB*i:t s Jqobs aao leiisii on JariJ- ^^a 0^ 3X 
gxiXYnd j8"t9 3Brloii;q Yii'nxbio ^srirf as ,i9bBT;;t isiictonB lo JBrf;t 
v/ , , ".bslsim 9cf oJ Y-ts^Iil sib ,nox:fx/sp. xi.saibto-.rflxw 

-tJs'sqqB lo Y;tl;txi9bx ,1X5 ,,IXbW ^I ,9;lxii'.*/ ,v ^inBqmoO oiBriioO nl 

itsjoo Qdi bns ,nox jBtsbxsnoo isbruj asw sna-tsai^ b9;tH9;tBg ax 9ons 

a\e 9riJ nx 11 cfijrii bleri bnB 8:tT5qx9 1.9,.xAOipx^a9xt edi tsyo -beaaeq 

T9aBrioW?fq B SB nox ;tn9 ;t:rB rioxrs saivls ,19VT98C(o Y"i^n-tl>TO n« !to 

-in939T sdi Ix ,draB8 9ri;t Y-tisJ^^fl^^sdxra 9d sxvaxasb ovi ,39vxs \LLBisau 

oj raxrf arixowbnx ,T9VT93do ns rioxrs evisosb oi sb rioya' ai eonBid 

b9;tfl9:tBq 9no cfaiil 9dct jiaricto siiJ ad oJ ii gnxapqqx/a 9no 9aBrio^xrq 

,i9ricto 9ri:t Yd b9s^i^t^i: p. x 

9tnBa 9rii nl 3a9nx3x;d gnxob sx ^tnBoxIqqB Bdi :iBdi ^^B9qqB if 

,rjun9'i9'i9T erij- nx s'3i:tTBq 9ri:^ SB yrfxo 

9ff^ 1:0 nol:fBtx;§x'tnoo lBi9n9g 9rl:t noqx; aoirgie ^nBoxIqqB sriT 

9rf:t" "io noxjiooq sdi ^btxcf 9ri^ 'lo sonB^B^qqB bnB 9sxs edi ,"C9b-iod 

bnB jbixd 9rl;t ^d bl9rf rionBid edi J.o alJtBisb bne a9VHoI sricf tagnxnr 

-YOlqm© cl ".-.Jfcr, A" b'fcc.v •■i-r :^: ,it ioBt orf.t noqi" afif^wb Y-C'^i^Ixroi^'ii^w 

a ertt "Brfct amleXo bns ,5lTBiis<-9bjBi;t cfneagiq edi rictxw noiitopnnoo nx *9 

.90lv3b aloriw 9fli o.t 19^0; iBi1o 39vxs 'tl&a.ti lo biov/ .tBri.t 'to get' 

erl:t 'to viBlvsi LuIs-ibo s aoqii bnB «;tn9EaB ctonnBo I aid^t oT 

e'T©nox:rx;t9q eriJ 9aw,sy IIxw ><ibih 9riJ texi.-f bXori J8X/ai I 3 9i^x-iori:ti;j? 

goods to bear the same name in the market as the goods of the 
owner of the registered mark which is cited as a reference; that 
while not exactly copied, it is a copy of a substantial portion 
of the registered mark, and of an essential portion, and that the 
public woiild be led to believe while buying the goods of the peti- 
tioner that they were buying the goods of the registrant. 

Registration therefore must be refused, and the decision of 
the examiner of trade-marks is affirmed. 

John S. Seymour, 

Jan^lary 18, 189 6, 

sAi to aboog srirf za isiitsca Bd:i ni amca asati?. eiii tbocJ Oj aboog 

isdi jsonaTsl&i 3 as b9iiT> si ffoiriw 3i^BIn bSToJaijiST Sjri.t lo lanwo 

noictToq lBx;JflB:tadua s lo yqoo i? ai :ti ,b9Jtc|oo Yl^toyxs ."foa ©ixriw 

8ri* iBiii bns^ ,aoiJ-tog lei^nseae hb 1o bne t^i'i^ffl b9T0:t3X33"[ er!^ lo 

-x^eq adi to aboog edi gnxAix/d aliriw svallsd o;J b9l ed biJ-ow oilduq 

.iniJicfaigaT 9fi;J io abooj^, 9ri:t gnl^jx/d stsw v^sd) isdi isnoi;? 

to noxaxosb odi brie ,b93iJl3T scf iairm aioloterfcr .noicfBTctsigsH 

.baiHil'l^is ax a-AtBrn-absii lo tsnimiJxs 9di 
^tL'0[ny,&Q ,8 arfoT, 

.5681 < 81 AiTBiirriBt, 


Jan. 16, 1B96, S, E, T, 

U. S. Patent Office, 4 

Ex parte L. ''. Rumsey Manfg. Oo, 

Trade-Mark for Water Closets, 

Pet ition, 

Api'lication for re.^istration filed December 14, 1895, No, 50,477, 

Mr, John D. ^^yer for applicant. 

This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner 
refxising to register the word "Como" as a trade-mark. The examin- 
er's refusal was based v.pon the ground that the word is geographic- 
al in character. It seems to me, however, that this objection is 
not a valid one in the present case and the examiner's decision is 
therefore overruled, 

S. T. Pisher, 

Assistant Commissioner, 
January 20, 1896. 

iciQis'i . 

.^t^BiifU),. . . .'.i-it^i; j-Lii 


;:fW nol ^tm-ebtnT 

t Unimex. 


al aoxE 

Tto no 

Uaifoij^ 9ffJ noQT jjsgBd 3i5W iBButdt e'1© 

. ar; 

onlmiixo aric 

5 *i Off Hi . 

KtojJ'Xiirio nJ: I« 

r!:t njt ano f)llBv *^ :ton 

,bQiiJii9vo STolsnerfd 

,0G8X jOS Y^B;/^Jit 



Jan. 14, ir396. S. K. T. /, , 

U. '^. Patent Office. ^' 

Ex Parte Alfred A, Brooks. CycLa.^>-^=^-^^ ^'^^^(T^^//- 
Trade-?'nrk for Razor Strops . 
Application for registration filed April 17, 1895, No, 48,986. 
Messrs. ^!acleod, Galver & Randall for applicant. 

This is a petition from the action of the examiner refusing 
to register the •vord "Honestrop" as a trade-mark for razor strops. 

The examiner refused registration on the ^^roimd that the word 
in question was descriptive. His position is that the words "hone" 
and "strop" used in their ordinary sif^nificat ion describe applicants 
device as fully as could be done by any two words. The word "hone- 
strop" is not in the diction-iry; notwithstanding this, however, it 
seems to rae that the, word is descriptive in that it implies that 
the article on which it is used possesses the properties of a hone 
and a strop. Moreover, in the patent to Ketchum and Wilde, No, 189, 
561, April 17, 1877, the word^honeiistrap" is used. This adds force 
to my conclusion that the word "honfiatrop" is descriptive in char- 
acter and the decision of the :xaininer is therefore affirmed. 

fi. T. Fisher, 

Assistant commissioner, 
January 20, 1896, 

*^^^ Bi'- i- ■ . bollix- 

.681 ,VX a.^rbeai^aisa-x tot aoi..oxI .qA 

_0l iXb-i-Jll ' - ^ 

» in BO if 


. '■ni 

,,, bn.oT. uK;^ no itoiJ«i:faxae-x beauts', lanim^xo ariT 

. ^ri:rqiio88fc afiw noi;t?.eup ni 

ss«,,f -i . -I'-'w no 9loi.t"i.^-' sri'^ 
anon ^ 

,GaX,oVf ,8bXiW bntJ murio<-ro)i o-. :tfw-^^t^^i 

„, ,.,,. ... .boM. 81 -qB..aqenorf.'b.o. oK. .VV8I ,VI IlnqA ,IBo 

. ■ ;-st;Ionoo ■'iOJ o:^ 

--iBrfo ni 8vi.-tqlt080b ax "qoiiosnorl" b-xov. 

,i -tonim^x -o noxaiosb sr^^ i^n« i9;ro.. 


^leriei' , 

,'^onox ■,,'. J-Cii'.;'.'-. 

,\ vtBJrni-'^ 



jHn, 5, S.K.T. 

. '. Patent Of'ico, 

Ex party! George S, Nicholas, 

^rnda-nnrk for \'fhisko.y. 


Application for rOf^intrution filed December 2(3, 1594, Ro, 4ii,15o, 

wesnrs. 1. ■'., ' '7, T. "oward for applicant, 

Thir> is a po.tit.ion tukon from the action of the exHminer re- 
f'.King -.0 r;!f,ioter +': - crrt "'•■'' ■'koley" as a trudo-raurk for whiskoy. 

It aoens to me th^it tho v/ord in question ia a v/ell knoY/n 
geogruphicnl tori.. •;--.iv. one which cannot bo rc£;istered in vit;w of 
Colunbiu Mill Co. v, Ai<;orn et al,, C'> 0. i. , 1916. 
The d..^cio-i.on of iho exuminsr i.- urrirmod, 

S. T. Fis-er, 

AsniRtr-mt Connin -ioncr, 
January 21, 1896. 

"-^ 'i)Vt. ,^5-o\r J^^U;r-YTK.3JX) 

•"' ■>^^'^^-^t . y'- 



a helil noj 

,ol nolcTijnJtXciqA 

V e 

:':u Brf.^ "to noiJoa or! 

■a sirtv 

[ai.'tw tut 3l-iiHH-t»i)ii-i. 

nwon:H XJ.^' 

"io • nl be' 





.Tan. 14. 189.. Q-W^-MT/^ . ^^, ^ -2^ ? 

• -■ • 

. Patent Office. 

Ex parte Tho Peters Cartridge CompHny, 

Trade-Mark for Ansnnnition, 

Pot it ion. 

Applicution for rof-^i.ntrat ion fiit^d Junnary 9,1895,^0,45,415, 

Mr. Frank '^. Brown for applicant. 

This in a petition tuken from the uction of the examiner ro- 
fvsing to register tho word •♦Pri^e" us a trade-murk for urjriunitiQn, 

The examiner •?> objection is thut the word in qsiestion is de- 
scriptive in charactor. It ia defined in the Century dictionary us 
"'ts^orthy of a prize; that has sained a prize". In view of iho do- 
cisions cited by the oxuminer and especially tho dictum in the case 
of th« AJnoskoag Mfg. Co. v. Bpear, 2 Hand,, S.C.,599, und in view 
of the New Fn^lund ^lalebone Mffi. Go., .'Jl ?Jr>. Dec., 71, und tho 
cases therein -citcc':, it se.jms to me thut tho position t'.ikon by the 
examiner was correct und his decision in therefore affirmed, 

TMmJury 20, 1B;;6. Assist'-jnt (^onmis ionor. 

.v:n«qOTor> dai)i-i;t' 


■ rfT aJt;>q jO 



.e,X^^o^^0M,ce8I,G ^luvaal ii.^m noI;t»t.1r 


,inat>iLc,<ii- 'iwotH .T :in»<T"T .iM 

ioi.tof» s»^oniraJ.•?X9 srIT 
... "^o 

^ ,.n: 

. IM 9nocioii> 

lo-«nf''.t Ejiai'D 

,f)«m-xl't";ii 6^o^:^»^9^ loxp.ioHij nir< 

antmiJXQ ^ a 

ilnnoO *ru>*8ia:;A 

M. H. 

n. S. Patent Office. Jf^iL 

Ex parte Henry A, Sipher and Oharles K. 'Priedraan, V 

Trade-T'ark for Coffee Substitute, 

!;or M-i to whioh tho tr-^'tu- 

Application for registration filed June 4, 1895, 

I'essrs, ^.. A, Snovrfe no. for ap licants. 

This i3 a petition taken frorc the decision of the examiner of 
trade-marks, in 'lisTiich he refused to register the words "Superior 
Coffee Helper" as a trade-mark for a coffee substitute, 

A name or a collocation of >vords which are merely descriptive 
cannot be ref;;isterfcd, bccaViso other dealers in coffees or substi- 
tutes for coffee havo a right to use all the ordinary words of the 
English language to describe their goods and their q^-alities. 
Though names or vords are not complete definitions, they are objec- 
tionable if, so far as they go, they are apt for describing the 
goods upon which they are placed. Ii this instance, "superior" 
clearly refers to the quality, and "coffee helper" also seens to 

\ R J5?. 

.... H;. 



"^ .111:5 mi) oi 

i'xsq xK 

.o?y!.U:>^.ouP. .isrio'.l -Tol 

♦ cuiax 

111 aoiSii-^islZiO-. 'iol nox^tsoil 


"io tdni. 

.Ovt.UJx JECi' 

i B si slxiT 

■i :Atiiir 



-■■ooIXo, o ocriBn A 

■ C'l'loo 'to":!: rckI 



901 fin dsiio 

« "^ i Oa,..,;f;;a(j 

'9!H:oo" i-,nK 

lioqi! ai)C' 

moan that the substance contained in the package either adds flavor 
to coffee or in itself a. substitute for coffe«>. 

In the spcioificfition accompanyinc this petition the appliccxnts 

••The class of Merchandise to which the trade-raark is appropri- 
ated i3 foods and ri.lishes, and the particular description of gooda 
comprised in r.uch class on which it is used by i;s is a preparation 
for use with, or us a substitute for, coffee." 

In tho fuo simile fi..ea with tho application occur the words 
"Townsend's Huporlor noffee Plelper. — It i^i all its wmo implies? 
Tho mrdr-, appear to Havc lh« meaning which I have sufjgested and to 
be intended to have such meaning and to be descriptive. If so, 
their USD -pon coffoe or its substitutes is op.n to the wrld and 
cannot be restricted by the adoption of these words as a trade- 
mark. They appear to f :11 wi;.hin the prohibition of the statute 
\vich r :qidr(;s tho applicant for rsgistration 'o oot forth under 
oath not only that such jurty jvas at the tirae a richt to the use 
of the trade-mrk sought : o be refjisterod, but tr-at no other per- 
son, .am, or corporation has the right to k»» such use, either in 
the id..ntical form or in any such near reaenolunce theroto h:-^ 
mi;3ht ba calculated to de^-oive. 

The decision of the exa«.incr of trade-warks is afi'irmed. 

John 3. fjeymour, 

Jamuiry 21, lc,9r,. 

rjllf* n»orr; 


itqoi iq« fii 

!• el a" vd b! 

(-1 ri f .t f ! n i J 

,0?. 1.1 .9vlJq-t'^ 


nobntx p:."io7 



,3HF.J:XMt bntJ nbool ui bB,tij 
; no f.BuXo -nua ni bSBitr -- 

, 1 hfisr.nvfoT" 


• gniattS'n iMn^c- 

:)l}i- tJ 

irtXJ:^: 'Jt- 

(»qq» nbt<w oriT 
:on noq eeif niort;t 

-V -r-il v.- 
J on Aii^P 

I •! !"■ U J ' 

: 1 . 1 1 O 

iO ,nnJ:')i tA"6 

rii 'iO 

, svj: 

-. !=^. Pa': ant' Office. J^>.-: 

M. P'-^^te :-;ioyuira ■jch^i^^l.ft -iri. ic; 

•fido-waric for E/mraellGd Wetal ooods. 

?st It ion. 

Application for registraUcm filed Octob«j^ 7,1095, Ho. Wytiiflf;*' 

rr. Theocior Aub for up-aicunt. 

Thi« i3 H petition taken from the action of the examiner re- 
f'^3ing to register tho -..ord "Stoel-Porcoluin" us u trucie-maric for 
emirnelled notul v/ares, 

Tho exuminer hold. th*t th. word in question is descriptive 

in chnrnctor in that it impli.. that the v.os^ln ur. „ud. of stoel 

and covered with The applicants position is that the 

word -porcoluin" cannot properly bo employed to designute tho 

finish on enurnolled ^i;\irihy but with fhic? pnni-«nti«„ t 

» "'A-^a ti,is contention I am unable to 

"Br««. no ..130 contend, thut the v,«r.< 1„ question au^Beat, that 
i-rceluin rwy h>v. .a particularly fine fi„l,,h so as to ro,,om- 

■t 1 


TOT: noiiDoi 

< ' 

no ri^ 

A 9 3 TO f; 

olG atoel in aorae rcmoto do.-r^ree, unri that t}TC word is therufore 
; . in u fanciful unci -irbitrtiry sense. This argument night be 
considered perhaps of some fvoight were it not for the fact thut 
the trade-mark is not to be used Tipon porcelain urticles but upon 

rticles of steel covered with enamel. This fact, which is unde- 
nied, aeerns to me to clearly ah^w that the word In question is 
descript ive. 

The decision of the oxtiminer is arfirmed. 

n. T. Fisher, 

Assistiint nommiR Tiiner, 
.Tanuury 21, 189G. 


</>'r(.t joa^ fiff;t -tot 

•> r , ■ •^^ « .t'l i: 

-••i « ex taninuixc r^rf -t 

-^«?QX ,12 V 





^1. .-•^, 1896. C^€^:.^.^U..^ 2^, ^r (2 ^^^. 

'. . Patent Office. 

?x parte Foot, -chuiz ami Co. j^ 

Tr«de-?.Mirk for Foot Vcur. 

Petit ion. 

*ri>Iicataon for rftfH'?f-T'«t i r,r. -fj i ->"." 

rta^tration filed r.fay 4, 1U95, ?Jo. 49,084. 

"^. . . rerwin for upplicar.ts. 

«-X„or m vu» or tho ™r. ..,ute.e. ., „,!„„„,, ,„,, , „„ ^^ 

hori^ont.i position. The r«r«rence ohows 

the- -M,3ure of a If; -ft. -■ -rri how ^ 

■-^•a hold in u vortic.l position with the 

v^ord "m-ide" on the pnlm theroof : tho e -.r. ntv. 

"^. '^nc. e uJB other mr.or diffarences 
between f ■ tv/o 

Tho examiner holds that tho rsse^hi -^n...,t).Unces nre <5o narked that 

=•■•- «. tHo <.«,.,.,„ „, ,,. ,_,„„^ „^ ^^^^^^_^^^^^_^ ^^ ^^^^^^^_^^ 

• ^ Pishor, 

Ar.3ir>tant Coranifisloner. 
TanuHry \y 


.00X110 iaoi»^ . 

-^ .of) bixa si"-' ' 


; ill .-^ P. 1 

ttni.. art:! f.oil neii*)^ noi^i^eti 

odaJit'g-t Ktfw noiJB'sia-'-- 



n j- .■ti<:tn»< 



oK.1 ^-^i^"" 

« '• ' 
or 3n. 

;t.Os^t&n* «■■ 

•ebi'm" bnow 

X ?) ©r. 

'. Tr. ^Mtcrit Office* 

Ex purte John Pew und Son. 
Trade-r'ark for pish. 
Petit ion» 
Ai-iilicition for registration filed ?'arch 1, 1093, Mo. 43,852. 
. 'ynry A. Seymour for applicants. 

This is 'i. petition taken from the action of the examiner r^j- 
■sfnsinc to register the words "Royal - Salted - Codfish" as a trurlo- 
rnark for saltiirt codfish. 

The examiner's action was based upon the previotisly registered 
trade-mark for P.o,.»instein Bros,, '10,14,917, Tlovoraber 6,1807, It 
seems to rae that the essential pnrt of the present m\rk is the v/ord 
"P.oyal", because "he ot -'^.r ?;ords, "salted" and "codfish", are clear- 
ly descriptive, I^oreover, I do not think that the use of the hy- 
phens between the words of the proposed trade-mark is ;-; sufficient 
difference to ^/arrant the re.^lstration of the present mark over the 

registered murk, the essential f, luuxo of which iv=. stated by the 

be the 

r^^fjistranta to kks word "Royal", 

It Is contended that if the examiner holds t?itt the present 
i .rk is tin infringement of the mark r^.Tlstered by Rosenstein Bros,, 
■m interference should be declared, I see no objection to this if 
applicants desire it. 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks is uffirmod, 

'% T. Pisher, 

Acting noramis.sioner, 
■ebruary 14, 1 ,9G. now Assistant Ooimisoioner. 


♦ nop. bni' ^'foT- a;ttj?(^ x^ 


, ?. 1 ! '.••oil qqs- 1 ol ^i;o.'^v 9? . A 

,^ r-! ^ 

-obo-ii B «» "riai'thor - baJlup - Xi.*' 

:telfi»'x o^ anisi'^j 

beTo.tgijiot viBxroJtvsiq srlcf noqu baawa ax«*' nolTsu a'TsnlmBxa orfT 

-vrf 9. .niri:^ :fon o.b I ,Tf>v;, .cviJqltoeeb Ml 

.tnaioillx;?. i< gJL >I*^. 1*1x1- ai)u*i:t bosoqo"\q orii lo bI)ic i.w^ad anoriq 

ortvt -tovo >(Ti<m ;tnoK*itq ef(.-t "io nol;t"i*-i»tK- 3'ono'^o?:llii 



JtiliAiiTi ii.4;. 




Hi Riri? o- noi.+ oetc'o on ;'0r I .boiBloob ad 
.botmi^lij al 8:i-x<;m-©bi''iJ lo 'tanirni^xQ 

tc. .-.' " I r: r-r .i 

t-frmoip.EJLfBBton : 
,-iaxioj ^nxJ^eiseA won 

■00 ax 


> no i air 

' ,M 

Feb, 13, 1696. (^...^^-.^U^ 'if^. ^Y. (J. 3C>L, g^ 2^ ^^ 

U. 3. Patent Office, 

— — 0^ 

Ex parte Kampfe Bros, / 

Trade-Mark for Safety Razors, 

.... ■ ' ■ i 

VK^tX^.xgfi^... .afcty razors, 

Application for registration filed July 15, 1895, No, 49,568, 
Mr» Oscar P. Gunz for, applicants, - ■^■.. "IrmGd. 

This is a petition taken from tjie refusal of the examiner to 
register "the representation of a star" as a trade-mark for safety 
razors. Registration was refused in viev; of the trade-mark regis- 
tered to Theile & Quack, No, 4, 1$0, December 5, 1876, for Cutlery, 
and the trade-mark registered to J, Dunn, No. 13,437, June 22,1866, 
for All Descriptions of Edge Tools, 

It seems to me that the first is the one which is most nearly 
calculated to deceive. The applicants urge that in 1876 no safety 
razors were on the market and that therefore Theile k Quack could 
not have used their mark upon safety razors. They also urge that 
nobody who wished to buy a safety razor would be likely to be de- 
ceived by a merchant offering him an ordinary razor. They say 
further that they have endeavored in vain to find a razor or any 
article of cutlery made by Theile & Quack upon the market, 

I am of the opinion, however, that safety razors are fairly 
included under the term "Cutlery", nor is there any adequate proof 
to show that safety razors were not manufactured and sold prior to 

) M 

♦ 8d3,et\,oW ,6681 ,51 1^101, 1)91x1 no J.:tB'i:ta igsi tol noxiJBoilq 

.3;tnJ3oiIqqf5 lol sni/O ♦'5 ibobO , 
o^ T9nxfflBX9 9ri^ lo iBawlBi Qdi moil n93iBi nox:tx;t9q b ai aiiiT 
Y^tolss -lol ^ism-gte'io ij bb "TB:f3 u lo noi; Jijcfnaastqei sri^" •i9;Jax,3 
-axs9i 3£ii}rti~9bBT;f eiii io W9xv ni f)93«!t9i sbw nox:fBi:t3lg9fl ,atos 
«Y'i9X.JxrO "fot j3V8I <6 tadraQoea, 0^1,^ ,on «jIoBnp :& 9lx9riT oi a 
,d83I,SS Qnsjl jVSI^tSI .oM ,nnxx(T ,1, o^ b&is ial'Qen jlnjara-gbsTJ' 9ri:t 

.alooT BZibZ lo 3noicfqx'to39a IIA t 
XLteen c^aora ax rioiriw eno edi tt ^tatx't sdi JBrf;* 9m oi ameez il 
YJ91j33 on 3V8I nx j-Bn."^ agnx; ainsoxLqqa 9riT ,9VX909b ocf bg^telifol, 
blxroo jfosxxp :R glxsrfT 9iol9i9x{:f iatii briB ^93{Tijm 9ri;t no 9T9W btos 
i M:i ^^^x; oali.- Y^rfT •aiosat Ti^telea noqw jiiisni liedi bezu sveri t 
«9f) ad oi ^ilo^lL 9d fc>I;jow tosBi xietsia b Ajwd o;t bgriaxw orivr YJbod 
YBa Y^rfT .10SB1 vtBnift^o ne mxri snxi9l:lo insrioism b yd bevi 
Yns 10 TosBT s bnxt oJ hlbv ai f>e^ovB9f)fl9 svsri ysri^ iadi T9riiT 
«:tQ^iBni arij' noqi/ sIoBirp A elxsrfT -^d sberti x'^^Lriuo lo eLoii' 
^Ltial 91B aTOjSBi y:rf9liJs .tBri.t ,T9V9Wori <noxnlqo &di to mB I 
tooiq 9iB5JpQbB yne ai9rf:t ai Ton t^'xtelisjO" snsi &di tebniJ b&bis.[ 
o^ Toitq bloR bne b9T:tf:toBti;nBiiT :ton ftsw aiosBi y^^'^p^- *Brfd" worfr. ! 

1380 (applicants, date of adoption), nor has it been shown that 
..eile . Quae, did not or do not manufacture and sell safety razors, 
nor that they have abandoned their mark. 

• ■ r.r tv,P Pvaminer of trade-marks is affirmed. 
The decision of the examiner ui. 

S. T. Fisher, 

Assistant commissioner. 

February 14, 1896. 


^arii nworta n,ed ,i asri ,o„ .(nox.,ota lo .a,„«oiXq,s) 088. 

.H-xem lisiij fisnobnjsds srari Msrfj jertj ,„ 

•TsnoxaalminoO ^insSsiazA 

• 9681 j^i YiBWids-!!: 


i? ^L A lU ^^^. (^ 3C.7 

:'. ■-. ?^itsnt officG. 
gx_ purte Str^iuar,, r-uchs anil Company . jy^ 

Trade- ■ ;; for ."'outh "; irmonic^iS, 
Pot it ion , 
Applicv:ion for rerristr,... i.wn -ilGd Docemowr o, lti95, No.50,3;^9. 
"essrs. .locder ^:; Briosen unu . . '. ... Lohnunn for applicants. 

This lf> a petition taken from the '■ix^l?-i^or» " •••^■rv.n.:! '^ v-.-tIc;- 
ter the word« "Pjr^'s -^uultles;;" ar> a trude-mHrk for mouth harreon- 
icHS. ?hv; ;;XHniner»f; r^fusr,;, _. .v-r;.>H tipon •^.'-e- pr^iviously rof^is- 
tftrort imirk ;. > -. ^^onk p^. Bro., No. 10, '41, August 21, 10B3. in tho 
rt^nisterod murk the OMnential f.^r:^t:i;ros -v- . • o bo t .- .,ord3 

"^^mraet Professionul". The exuninor tukes the position that the 
only rfif-iatru.jle mnttor in . -:■- -■ -.-i/licunta' m^r,. m. ,.;,., .^c- 

iRt.ftnjd inur]< :g woni •♦^ramet*, since the word •• Tenuities .3" is do- 

'- '^^^* '"' -n --'intinc thut tho ;vord 

••:-lnnet» is old ana 'he ^0- Utless" .iescriptive, thoy both to- 

' ...^.-•.. .: • - . vulic tr^i^ac-niurk, 

I »im unnbl^- t,o af-^rt-e with the position tuken by fappll cunts 
- ■:- - • -f- , r of truat-rciui-iCH is uffirrnod. 

n. T. pishor, 

Assistant rjonmisr>ioner. 
bruHry 17, 1890. 



l2B3i 2J2 




, -:a A Jinc 



;ItJMn i" 




>[»ti>ffl toiitft.iRi 


;<nw nii* I 


'J. S. Patent Office 4^C>«^ 

V]x parte ^.eorf^e S. Nicholas, 

?ru(ie-T££irk for Whiakoy, Recorded Vol. 50. p, 315. 
ApplioHtion for re;3istration filed December 2G, 1894, No, 48, 153. 
", . . , :. Toward for applicant. 

This io a rohearinf-r of applicant's appeal from the decision 
'■ " " "' -\' --•.-.riiner refusing to re,c;ister the v;ord "Hfij^'keloy" as 
Hde-raark -hiskey. Registration vras ref'^socl on the ;-:round 
.' .. .lu 'iar_:3tion ..•.i.s :.i (jeo£:;ruphicul 'V-nne, Upon the re- 
' ; j-ffidavits vvero introdxicod showing that the nurk in qaos- 
i:-.' uji.;u .•■-•) ■ ,/ York unr' '-^ ■' no connection with any place 
bfearin.f^ the nun-,; of Berkeley, jt v/as also stated that the -.vord 
- ■■■ ■"•'■■ '-.e reuaon that ir, v/as a noted family none. 
This case has been in intorference v/ith the registered Tnark. 
" ; T in ' nrosent applicant was victorious, 

T an still somo-A^hat in doubt as to the propriety of register- 
ing the word in nuostion as a trade-mark, but in view of the facts 
broi;'';ht out in the affidavits ana aloo in view of the fact that 
registration has been once grantee ,;other party, the former 

.ocision is reiv&r<^fi(^. and the examiner of trade-n.-^rks is directed to 
register 3aid n les." there ia further reason not disclosed 

by the record £■■: inr. it, 

''\ '\ T'^shur, 

AJisistant normis.^ ionar, 
Pebruary 19, l89G. 

, Kplorioi'i *^ '■■ 

aJ-UK^ -..;. 

aXS.q.-" .i-' 

noieioet) or? j mc ' 

^({i no bosirlo'i 


ii'nv , 

X aint'Ci yrfi ^srio li^i-- 

D-i ov; 

-Iini?l becfo 


■ riB 3t*ioY 

j. n-^:o'. 


t;v.' 11 '-'■•'■ ' 


■inf^.i ioit'^- 


;ovf ori:f Tin-t 
n i r. i ■ 




Feb, 27, 1896. S. E. T. 

U, S. Patent Office 

Ex parte The American Wringer Company, 

Trade-Mark for Clothes Wringers, 

Recorded Vol. 58, p. 549, 

Peti tion. 
Application for registration filed May 31, 1895, No, 49,286. 
Mr, Alex. Mahon for applicant. 

This is an appeal taken from the decision of the examiner of 
trade-marks refusing to register the word "Superior" as a trade** 
mark for clothes wringers. The examiner refused registration on 
the groi'ttd that the word in question is descriptive. It seems to 
me that the examiner's position is correct and this v/ord, moreover, 
has already been refused as a trade-mark. Ex parte Rogers Pence 
Co,, 47 MS, Dec,, 399, 

The decision of the examiner is affirmed, 

S, T. Pisher, 

Assistant Commissioner, 
February 28, 1896, 



90X1^0 SnsiB'i «S ,U 

,\;nBqraoD T:98n**iW nBoiismA sriT ejt jii:- q xg 

,ef^S,q,8a,XoV £)9fc)ioo9fl 

.Sas^ei' ,oH ,6681 «I£ \:b?! b3Lit nox.tBtcf aigsi Tol noi^BolIqqA, 

.;tnBoiIqq3 io1 noriBl! ,X9lA .'i'! 

lo fsnxfriBxs srf :t lo noxaioeb arfl moi'i n9>:si laoqqs p.b ax siriT 

»-9bBi* s BB ""lOXisqxTS" blow sdi is^fsxgsi o.t gnxax/io-j 3>IiBm-9bB'i J 

no noiiB'ii ai-^ei. beaxflei isnxrrtBxs 9riT .s'lagnxTff asriJoIo lol jIiBm 

oc^ am99B il .ovx-JqlToagb ax cxoiiessjp ni tiiaw 9ri:f :i3c{i bn^fOTg arict- 

,i9vo9torn,btow axriJ briB :fo9T"£Oo ax nox:tX3oq a'TanicriBxs ecii cfBrirt sra 

gone"? a-tsgofl ^J^T^q x^ .jiTBni-ebBicf b 3b bsai/le-i a9 9cl ybssilB aBri 

*Gee ,,06(1 ,8M V]^ , .oD 
,b9ffliiT:lB al TsnimBXo io nolsioab 9riT 

,^9r{3X'i{ .T .5 
.TsnoiaaifliraoO ^riBctaxasA 

,3681 ,8S xiBisids'i 




?Gb. 2V, 169 6. S. K. T 

U. n. Patont Office. pJ 

F.x parte Th'-; ;ijncricun 'Vringer Company, 
Trude-T^urk for "'ringers, 

Potition. Recorded vol. .08, 

p. 348. 

Application for rn.Tiflt- ration filed IIovembGr 10, 1894, l-^o. 47,792, 

'■r. Alex, 'Tahon for applicant. 

This is an appeal taken from the decision of the examiner of 
trtide-raurks rofiisinj^ to register the ■«7ord "Stftrlinc" -is a trade- 
n^'irk for wrinf^ors, Ths examiner refused ro/^lstration on the 
ground that the ^ord in qxiestion is descriptive. It seems to ae 
that the exaninnr»3 position is correct and this word, moreover, 
has already been refused as a trade-mark, Kx parte Candee and 
Com-pany, docided ,Tuly ^r, , 1879, 

The decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

55. T. "i^isher, 

Assistant Coramissionor, 
"'•-bruary 38, 189 G, 

.8^3!i^i•lvr not : 
.... . noi J " 

. ; < yo i Xq qi» t ol no rfsM . x o 

-^ o ;•' r 


Mar, 3, 1896, , S. E. T. 

U. S. Patent Office, 

Recorded Vol.58, 

Ex parte Frank P, Harned, p. 368, 

Trade-Mark for Astringent Tubes, / 

Cylinders or Sticks for Barbers and Shavers Uses, 


Application for registration filed June 25, 1895, No. 49,462, 

Mr, J, W. Douglass for applicant. 

This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner of 
trade-marks refusing to register as a trade -mark for stiptics a 
mark "the essential feature of which is the side bordered label, 
bearing the word symbol Astringent Pencil and surrounding a cyi- 
indriform non-pointed package or article." 

This case has already been before me and the words "Astringent 
Pencil" by themselves refused. 

The examiner holds that - "Inasmuch as nearly all labels have 
borders on their sides, neither the inclusion of the border nor 
that of the printer's ornament in the essential feature is suffi» 
ciently important to add any distinctive trade-mark character there- 
to. See ex parte Brunswig, 57 MS. Dec,, 342.'' 

It seems to me that the examiner* s position on the mark as 
covered by the present statement is correct. If it should be re- 
cited that the label is green with gilt borders and with the v/ords 
Universal Astringent Pencil", I think registration should be 


allowed, S, T. Fisher, 

March S, 1896. Assistant Commissioner, 

.T .3 .3 \ .9681 t£ *tB 

,8oi:l:'tO jul-jj-.S .2 .'" 
,oa,XoV bsbt 00 sH 


«ctftBoiIqqB lol 3BBl§woa .W ♦!, .- 

xo TsniniBxe sri cf lo notiOB edi moi'i nQ?lB:t noictx.»4 t; al sirIT 

i> aoilqiJa io1 jltBm-sbj 3b 'I9:t8is9"t o:f §ni awlot 83l^Bra-9LB- 

jXedBl b9T9f>Tod sbls srli si rioirlw 'to &iij:fi5al Lt}s.iaea3e eriJ'" >;-i;: 

-£^io B gnibnwottJJa Iuib Xione«T cfnssnii^sA lodciYa btow adi ^^i^BJ 

".sXcxjTb 10 92iB3ioBq b9Jnxoq-non flno'tXTDr 
cJnoanxTvtaA" sb'xow sdi bas em 9iolsd nssd ^beaiXB RBri gaBO sxrfT 

,b93i;l9i a9vX93ra9ri:>' vd "Xions 
©VBri 8X9dBX XXb vXii'sn 36 rfonmsBnl" - iarii abXorl 'i9nxmBX9 9xlT 

ton tabtod edi lo noxai/Xonx 9ri:f leniian ,39bxa tiedi no 8i9bi( 

-xlljJB ax 9ii;:tBst XBXcfn9as9 9ril nx .tnsmBnio a'ls^fnxiq 9ri? lo isi 

-^ladi TQcfoBTB rio 3t'iBm-9bBT:t 9vx:foni;tai b yfis bbs o:t :tnB^-Joqfflx Y-t^n9J 

".S^t ,,09a.3M V6 tgxwsnirta s^tBq X9 998 .c 

an jftsra edi no nol^tJtaoq 3*i9nxinBX9 erf^t iBdi gm o:f smggs .tl 

-9'£ 9d bluorla oX II .JognoD ax ^tngras-tsia ^ngasiq grfcf yd b9*T9V( 

abnow 9xi:f ri;flw bnB 3T9b*tod ;tXx§ dilvf negig ax Le^aL sdi ^Bric? i f .fx 

Gd bXi/ofia nox JBT::tr.i:iM'r Tlrfj-rf.-t I ,"XJ:on9<5 ^nej^nx-icfaA LBc-.ierfirJ 



Dec. 24, 1895. S. E. T, 

U. S. Patent Office. 

Kx parte Luc I en N, Brunswig, 

Trade-Miirk tor Bittera, Recorded Vol.r>8, 
p. 165. 


Application for registration filed April 9, 1895, No.4«,91(J, 
Messrs. ?^inn ft Co. for applicant. 

This is a petition for a rehearing on the ground that the 
former decision d.ted October 25^ 1695, did not cover overy point 
raised by the former petition. The point of law raised la a pec*!- 
liar one and the examiner and the applicant Mnitejin the request 
that the case be sent back to the examiner for reconr.ideration. 
This reqvest is granted ^md the examiner will proceed to reconsider 
the case us if no petition had been taken. 

S. ?. ■'^isher, 

Assistant Cornraissioner, 
He comber 27, lh9r.. 

.aeax ,*•; 


„ , .)i j..1eq « sJt BlriT 

inioq rtavo tovo!) ;ton blh ,a(-;BX «<V^ t»do.taO noJ.t) noi«io9b tsr- 


"^ I r.n C8J»0 9 r' 

,a<?aX iVS -ledmeo^*' 

*.. \ 

March 13, 1896. S.E.T, 

U. S. Patent Office. 
Ex p ar t e Oumden Knitting Company, 
Trade-Mark for Knit Underwear, 

Petition, Recorded Vol, 58,p,41(a 
Application for registration f-led January 18 ,1896, No, 50, 657, 
Messrs, Smith k ]nenir,on and Mr, F. A. Lehmann for applicant. 

This is an appetil from the decision of the examiner of trade- 
marks r( fusing to register t!ie word "Florence" as a trade-raark for 
knitted goods. The examiner refused registration on the ground 
that the word in question is a geographical term and therefore it 
could not be registered in view of Columbia Mill Co, v, Alcorn, et 
al,, 65 O.a, , 1916, 

It seems to me that the position taken by the examiner is 
correct and his decision is therefore ax-firmed, 

n. T. Fisher, 

Assistant Coramissioner, 
March 13, 1896, 


,ii59Vi9bnU Jin:-; -f-o-i ii^jM-ebiJiT 

.inBolXuqs 'lO^ nufc-i.K ^.„ '^ • ; 

^^ -vn n-xsio9i) erf:t motl I^ecqi? nn kx axriT 

,.1-A V on iLiV BidnmXoD lo 'atsIv n.i D9i9crax,i9T 
>t i> J fi'i 00 iA «v .0^' ixj.1. " 

,3xei t.r.o c'.c^ c.ifi 

at tenxmBxa sdi ^6 noi. ^ nox.txaoq ori.^ .n. e..t 

.. ;.r-.ob sir: bne ^osttoo 
,bara-' '• ^' "- 

^lanoiKBiinrioO ^aw^RJasA 

,aeBX ,SX rioiisM 

, 1 

Recorded vol.58, 
p. 466. 

March 26, 1896. S. E.Tl. 

U. B* Patent Office, 
Ex parte Frank Canz, 
Trade -Mark for Flavoring Extracts, 
Application for registration filed December 26, 1895, No, 50, 505, 
Messrs. Higdon & Higdon & Longan for applicant,- 

This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner 
of trade-marks refusing to register the words "Don't Cook Out" as a 
trade-mark for flavoring extracts. The examiner's position is that 
the words in question are descriptive. These words convey the 
idea to my mind that the flavoring extract to be used is of such a 
character that it may be added to articles of food before cocking 
and that after cooking the extract will still be present in the 
food; in other words, that the cooking operation will not destroy 
the flavoring extract or expel it from the food. 

It seems to me that the examiner's position whs correct 
and his decision is affirmed, 

3. T, Fisher, 

Acting Dommisoioner, 
March 27, 1896, 


,8881 ,9S rioisM " 


,8c1.XoV bsii'ioooH 

t9ninu?x9 srfcf 'to noictoB Qdi tiio-fl n©>IiK+ nox^+icTeq s, ai slriT 

s ej^ «:t0O a[ooO :f'nofT" eb^ov/ ericT -loctslaaT o;' anls.alet Brrfisra-sbBi* lo 

cfBricr 8i noi;tlaoq a'leninwxs srlT .a^toj^-f -txe anliovBn io*i jltBm-ebBti 

erict YS^/noo ab^ow sesdT .svl-tqlnoaeb stiJ noxiaswp ni 8b^ow sri-^ 

8 rioJJE -io ai boaxj set o:f cJojs-x^lxe ^aiiovBn bA^ i i^d^ bnim ^m o.+ BBbl 

Sni^looo :..iol9d bool 1o aoini^t-JS o:t bebbs sd ym n cf Brief tsJoBTjjrIo 

ericr ni ;fR938tq ad XIxcTs IXiw ^Toei.txs eri;J sniiooo Tsctla *Bri-^ bn^ 

XOiieeb ^on lliw nolttr.oqo anX3[ooo »r<:t rTsrfc^ ,8b-:ovr tsri.^o ni ;bool 

.booT: arict mo^l ii Xaqxs *io :toBT+x3 a-^^'^O"'^-'^'^ s^* 
io6t^oo st^w nox:tiEoq a ••isnx. ..x,. ^di ir-^^-^ -n oi ei^on n 

.bsratX'nfl sJc noxsj.oeb airi bne 


U. S. Patent Office, 


Ex parte Brorao-Celery norapany, / 

Trude-!'Hrk for f^edical Compounds, 

Petition, Recorded vol.59, 


Application filed November 15, 1894, 

Vr, Arthur L. Brynnt for applicant. 

This is a petition from the decision of the examinor of trado- 
n:n.-ks, rofiioinn to ■'•Hr;ioter -.he com ound vord "Brono-'^elery" ns a 
trade-murk for a r:6di;:al compound or preparation, for the relief of 
}-;<:->',(. a 3he, nciiral^ia, <?co. 

The examiner's objection to the word in its descriptive nature 
as applied to applicant's preparation, indicatin,';^ that the prepara- 
tion riontainn b--onin an*^' celery, or if the preparation does not 
contain the;.e ingredients, t ho vord is used deceptively. 

The applicant rjontends , however, that the word "Bromo" is not 
such a descriptive te:"?n aa to make the compound word non-rerjistra- 
ble under the law, and cites the case of Keasbey et al, v. The 
Brooklyn Chemical 'Vorks, decided by the Court of Appeals in "Mew 
York, 37 i\\ V. Rep,, -1.76, where the word "Bromo-Caffoine" was held 
to be a valid trade-mark, and N,K,'Pairbank h Co. v. The Central 
Lard Co., 64 Fed. Rep., I5ii, to support his contention. 

Both of these decisions have been given careful consideration 
and while the court from the facta before it came to the conclusion 


' ij ^' t • 1 

, G3 , loV hQbiooo/{ 

, *n B n JL Iq qrf to"?; vtii^i •;•■ 


-tix/ft-iA .nW 

■■f .,(nrrr-..' 

.0^.. t^'ia-t-CtiJon ,9ric»)f)t$9rf iJ 

' -f • >i -i r IT' c. V -'■ « n' 

-fteqe-xq erf:^ ind:^ -p^niiBoiiHii ,noxii?nj;q9-iT s'Sn^oilqqj* o? boxiqqf* a** 

-STlsijjft'x-non b'iow bnwoqmos Bri.-r e3l»« o:t ss .cnoReh iJ rfoi/e 

erlT ,v .' /"iuft^. • ?^"i ' '-^rr aid 

whK nl RlfisqaA to ;Jifror onhlnfth ,b;<io?' X^r-nxmerfO n^X^Ioonff 

Ib". ine*^ arfT .v .on -*. jJn^diXi?' . . ./Atim—:- 

A Li<v if &6 oi 

noi.'tBTftoisnon XtfTistun nsvig naad avBrf snoiaxoeb QR^di to rfJoH 




that the pluiiitlffs wero entitled to the so.le use of the word "Brono 
?Hff«ine" uF a trade-mark, yet with the fuctR before me in the pr«e^^ 
unt c«se, I am of thc'S^iJiion thni the word "Bromo-Celery" is de- 
scriptive, "B^'omo" indicuting the pre«enc8 of bramin or h bromid in 
uptAiofcint ' s pr»2pura*lb'rt, .ea a*; 

Broraic, i.: xM' ■'rell known, is h conpound formed by the union of 
i;ror".in v/ith another elm^-ent or -.vith un organic rvidicul. Ohenists in 
Ji'ikinc the cocipound in whicl either or a .brorcid is a constit- 
uent (inrt cuaton.a;-*ily , in rvvning such h. conpound, contract the ^ord or to brono , and the latter word has grown into gon- 
erul to indicate such eler.ent in sx'oh a conpound siibstance; for 
example, the r.ubstance obtained by the action of brorcin on alcohol 
in the presonce of ulkalien in known as tri- broiao -r.ethone or bromo- 
form, and tri-broino-phonul ir. a conpound produced by the action of 
bromin upon phenol. National "Ois onaatory, page 362, As examples of 
conpound substances in which a bromid is used, see bromo- chloral urn, 
a .•solution of chlorirt and bromid of aluninium. The Bensitive pho- 
to:jraphic enul^.ion kno^n i-is bromo-f^elabin in prepared from certain 
bromids, together with nitrate of silver and gelatin. TTien photo- 
graphic platf?R in tho wot procen;. are inpregnated with bromids and 
iodida they ' are 3uid to bo bromo- iodized. 





-,.,,. . , noiniqo arTt "io na I .eawo -' 

-nor. rtwot:. nM h'.o >n. ^orurui ^^ '^^^^"^^^ ''" '^'^'^'^ 

ion 00 1 

' i « 'io eionoao^q erf." . 
onoriJsm-ogcrio." - ' 

. ' -inorfq noqi; nimo' 
^^^..^, . - t,X»r.-omotd ay nvroit3{ noisXyna oirtq*^- 


lO 80 Iq: 


It would aeera therefore that "Bromo-'^elery" is a name for a 
substfmce the ingredients of which are broinin or u brojnid nnd cel- 
ery in none form, ana that it is used descriptively, Tf, hov/ever, 
it be lined on h preparati-n in which u broraid or bromin and celery 
are not the constitiient parts, --he A'ord would be used deceptively, 
and could not be registered. 

The ux'-ivainGr^ :; action in refusing rogistration is affirnod, 

John r., r.eynour, 

yri^ 2, lb96. 

^ ■ x:fH'fBC7Tia J* no b9f.u ad :ri 







U. B. Patent Office. ^Ik^"^^ 

l°:x p-irto Rdwin W. Orove. Recorded 

vol, 59, 

Trade-"ark ' 1^6-^ ■!t<%'«»odlfts 'for 'noiiP5"!i'S,'-c^|0'iut«*;;A«^ e tj>ia^e-75. 

-.-'•' lefendants commenced 

RehfeD^D^f^iin ai>proprlation of thl« name 
_^*.i4-s,rt.T:ing fro« «n effort to -rt 

Applica i'-n for rr.fti.«ft]««t'ti6n f 11 ftd. !-B4!«eTibeii *k4?lRfty. another „ 

-•i-^-*-*"" de«c' le Ingredients 

essrs. Hif^don Lon(*«n. fai^sappllcaxit. i unction 

--«-«-*ise c •• .-.pLca by the 

it iije ui A^fTi^ thsy 

This is H pfitition f®p prehearing, .the,, applicstnfcfs l^ri(G4p- 

ff8« trade-mark. It could only be 

■0 i'otition 'h'lt tho word' ?'Bromo-.Otli!ftin«''ybQ ri|rij»tereu.'-fSs^ J'ft*i4:t-'- 

. nrk for cold, couj^h and headache ronedies having been denied Fay 

:«ioa Is adhered to« 

:""), 1894. This docioion was in part based upon a decision of the 

:'ev/ York Supreme Court in the case of Kea3bej?ie1^.\«iiA*rY. 3rookiyn 

Kov •; oHfflj i 6 - i n e r ^ 

Chemical "'.irkB, Trade-?furk Record, April 19, 1893. In this case, 

■-.ov/evor, an appeal has been taken to the Hew York Court of Appeals 

(ii'/ -, p. Rep,, 476), and the former decision was reversed; ■■"r-fjreup- 

on .'-he applicant petitioned for rehearing, ** similar case was de- 

ciried by the Comnissioner in person on f'ay 2, 1895, ex parte Bromo- 

'^clery 'o. In that decision it was held that the word ''Bropio- 

'Blery" v/as descriptive. The lanj^uage of tbut deciaion -ipplios 

exactly to tho preaent caoO, i^oroovyr, in the case relied apon by 

applicant, tho question of fraud undoubtedly influenced the co^.rt; 

K^iis, it '-as r,aid in tho third purar-raph from th f? closo of the 

'iecis ton; 

"The d.-jfendants should be enjoined fron the further \i.!e of 

.:tniT- ■■ nob-. - , -1389'' 

:'.'." ; .L ' 


Gi^J "10 noiaior - .sq nl bbw aoxsioob «lrfT .^eax ^a.s 

••' • ) 

;■ • -^ 

,- ( , ( . 

. '■ '■ f "■ 

' " £ d 1< y. •-• 

Iho:tdiiobn.( bue^';- . ini«oiIqqi* 

:noi sloe' 


a name which the plaintiffs had legally appropriated as a trade- 
mark many years prior to the time when the defendants commenced 
its use. We can see no reason for an appropriation of this name 
by the defendants other than that arising from an effort to convert 
to their own use and benefit the labor and skill of another^ As 
this name adopted by plaintiffs does not describe the ingredients 
entering into f3aiXRidct£±K defendants' preparation, an injunction 
restraining the latter from the UvSe of the name adopted by the 
plaintiffs can inflict no injustice upon defendants. And they 
should not be permitted to acquire any advantage to themselves by 
the unlicensed use of the plaintiffs' trade-mark. It could only be 
used by the defendants for a fraudulent and illegal purpose, and 
the plaintiffs should be protected from such an improper use," 

The former decision is adhered to, 

S. T, Wisher, 
Assistant Commissioner, 

now Acting commissioner. 

May 4, 1896, 


"L:IsIo .fn/bne?ei> e« nertw a.i* .H. o. .ox., anBey ynB« X.«.^ 
I' ,;I^^^nri] odt'oMb lof seob .lt«niBXq AJd beJqobB Bmsn .iiC 

w^saa laqoiqffli ns rfoua rao il DOJoaJoiq 

.0^ i)9ieri£>B ai noisioob isanol eriT 

,^^rfBX^ .T .8 
.isnoissxiniHOO ;triB;tsx33A 
.i9nox?33XfflffiOD anx;toA won 

.3681 ,J^ \sn 


April P/.jj 189(3 0f^ 8. E. T 

U.?;. P'itont Office. / 

Ex parte Daniel P. Packer. Recorded Vol,5S, 

page 29, 

Trade-»r.-irk for L-xativo. 

Petition , 

Ai^filication for r^i/ristrat ion filed December 24, 1895, No. 50, 522. 

■'e^sra. Church Ik Ohurch for applicant. 

This is a petition tv.koc. from the action of the examiner 
of trade-narks refusing to register the word "Solvent" as a trade- 
r.urk for medicines. 

The position of the examiner Is that the trade-mark is 
descriptive, or if not descriptive, it is deceptive. The applicant 
claims that the word is purely arbitrary, i am of the opinion that 
the examiner's position is correct, in this opinion I am confirmed 
by the fact that nany of the raedicines to which the mark in ques- 
tion is to be applied have a certain amount of solvent or dissolv- 
ing po^wor. 

The deo.i.nion of the examiner of trade-marks is affirmed. 

n. T. Pisher, 

Acting Commissioner. 
April 24, 1696. 


<»- /^ 

.00.- ' 

.ee.iov ' •' ' - 

• / 

,?.onioibom toI jI**' 
<9 ariJ to noiJiaoq erlT 

'^r[.r noiniqo 'Jrt- 

-"'^^'^ ... .ci o:^ r.i noli 

.n^uT-iiltB ai a3l"iiJm- 


,-TOWOq afJ- 


.9631 «i^S X 


, I 

■' ^. Patent Office. . '• * 

— — ^k^ 

Ex i)_art_e Silvornann ft CompHny. 

.^rK ror v..iraont f'.upportors. p. 76. 

I Petition. ^' 

""'■. ^^ '. Seymour for uppHcliS^^ ^ '"* ^"^^ 

" ■'■'■ "■"■"'" "" "' - "-•-°-"° '•■•'-'= '-"'"i-^ionor upon .„,other ' 

- - ---to in t.or.oin,, strips of .,™„t 

supporters unci a serion of lines cro-- ^n^i^' ^""^ "'" " ^^'•^'"*^ ^^^-^ ^«^^^ 

^incs one another visible 

throTifTh the hoi6";ir, .^,„„ „ ibe hin •-r-),*:-. 

axng S4;uirf;3. 

In the fiooifi ion r-funln-re^i «?+.-.- fi 
p^'i)-k it wfiE mark in no^: r-^ i~- r-.- .i,. 

• .-"-on or the application nie> t oont.i': 
re :l«r,rablo mattor', hs when f'hi - ' '• ^■'- ■■"•'. ^'is 

, . , '" '"' "!'««'> tatlon Of « hoio With cro.,, 

lines Within ■; ... , ^oss line- -.v; -;.. • im ■ ■- 

-• • '-^^Ine w.on thia sussestion, the uppli- 

0-- .to^,.., ^,„,., t.o „pWic.tio„ «„a „o„ 3... ..,i..,«.,„„ 

- "- ....o..t.ti„„ o. . .01. ..... .^^:f r;:„„tr .:-'.•;- 

c> v,j.T.noi,.t ■.r:dn fir. en t of the 

--^n^. -- .,.;.<:.. on to the is that it i. a true picture 

'^ '^« urtiole Which up lic^nts nam ^ • 

^ ^ . ' •'"' """^ i .-'icture or a 

.'hotorrtiph OT- ... ... , -, ^ 

•do x).XK*x«i.i,ii™,» Of manufacture i. „ot r»,.~ 

i.'trable as s trudo-K„rk. for .h„ ..,.„ J""" ' 

' ■''° """ '"'•'-•-''n »«' un accurate 


♦ fiomr-" 

old u 

: .-..In' 



i -f,' 

in nnJt.-:i3«5i oil'' mon;: p..> 



Loi^i* ^*^ 



.... Pn..t„™phlc repre.ontation., of goods. «s -.voai „. to use 
tho o„Un«ry «„, v..„l,-,n,.„ woni. „. tho S^gUsh l,.„^.a,o In de- 

nt upo„ .,h«i. ^,,rt. or not, for t>,« potuion doos not .h<,» 
:a; ,= ,«r,t„rs no,, .-..«nd, tho applicants arc the owners of «u 
rlehts undor „„v ....tont.n v^ich may bo .„ ,r«ntod. Kvon wore 
'.hi-' =<. 'hey arc c.pabl. of ncparato o™.,r.<,Mp „„« ^hoevor ™ay 

"""■ ■""■* '"^"^ " '''-'■ '" ««-"«l^' ■^-ncribo hi., ,oodn, ci.„cr ., 
• ruo pictv. . 

It miuu. be ?ield, v.horeforo, that the marir i^ «nf • . ., 

> "la.. .,fie mar.? is not rej-istrable 

us ch'-ancefi nnrl a'-.onfiod. ^v.p>.p i„ bn.--«„.. 

-..trc i.T, ?^.o.,ever, appurontly reeistrable 

mutter in 'ho ?.;>>-> . ^■i_„i^ . ^, 

- • -^ry., ,^ ,i.,ie v/ith cror.s line, v/ithin It or ,t,.per- 

pooOfl upon it •ii,7v,f .• .• . 

.iL,l-.t '"■^"••"'^•'•:' r„n>vod frc^n doscrlptlvo ratter 

to constitute h trudc-«.r,= »hi=h. ir .dopt.d by those appii,.,nts 
«nd n«d upon t.oir .oort., .ight bo r<„istrablc. .„d this was in- 
tended to b. tho ™«ni„;; o.f the (bnnor decision. 

-u, the decioion of tho exanlnor of trade- 
mark 3 is affirwcd 

J^ay ;;, 1896. 

John S. oymour, 


.-How hnn ^tsnibto B!^i 

hniJ 8- 



Ivf aloT- 

,rfoir{w Jl- 

vd -to oTf/iotq at-'" ^ 

; T 

ii:,n sA 


.aG«i ,r; 


U. S. P A T E H T I- p I c E. 
Washington, D.C.May 25, 1896„ 

aegl.tration of "club Oo*-IaUs" Por Mixed Brl„^. Alo^ed. 
The oxa^iner reused registration of t:w word. "Club Cock- ' 
Tail, as a trade aa.,. for .Led drinks on the gro^d that the 

word "Cock-tails- wa^ mt^ai-^ a^ - ^. 

was purely descriptive and the word "club", as 

Shown by ™.erous registrations, has long been applied to bever- 
ages containing alcohol as an l„,redlent and had by such tra.e u,:. 
age ac^lred a well defined descriptive character m connection 

with these goods. Moreover tj.=+ <„ ^ -l, 

.^ moreover that m Cahji vs. Hofman House, report- 

^i m the Trade Mark Hecord,^gust 15. 1834, the word "^ub" was 
held to have ao^lred a special and well understood .easing as apl 
PHed to Wines and li^ors and Indicated that the goods so marked 
were of superior grade and quality. 

The commissioner 1„ an indorsement held "The decision of the 
examiner reusing registration of the trade .ark in this c.e is 
overrule do 

(Signed.) John s. Seymotir, 



.,[000 cfi.-lO" B^iow Tfi.^ 

exit W ^a.o.B --^ -- ^^^ ■ ri...^ooO" f>-w 

..eve. 0. .olLm. -ee. ..^^.- - - ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ 

r ^etOB-BXfo 9v.Uq:xioB9i) £)9nxl9fc IX9vr B 
d-.xoa9t .-vrroH HBi^loE . av i^O «^ ^^^-^ . 

' r_-, ^,- rtl 5s>nols-lmoO sdl 
,t to r.oHlo9B erti- filed teo«3-xot« a.. «x 

. -t -i ^.B« eI.B^.t etf.^ 10 aoltB.te.8« B^--^^^ 


,^o^ea .8 mloL (.ft9nsla) 

ot9nOXBBii!I^-0'^ t) 



The New Xoric Powder Companjo 
Decided June 5, 1896o ' 

Recorded Yolo 59, Pag e 142 


'■'^ P'^«'" - MS»DeG,j.a2'f. I;: ejcT parte Hi ^ 

So T. Fisher, 

Aacting Comiii.issionerB '.a-m:'?f -f.Y'h' 

TMs is an, appeal fron the decision of the exaiainer of trade« 
marks refusing to register the word "Black diamond" as a trade 
mark for the class of merchandise consisting of fire,. .ari9.Sj^ ammiini- 
tion, and explosives, the particular, d9_s,criivtiog-._g^. goods upon 
which the mark is used being blgsting powder^».f.^^g^^j,-^ £^_ ^^^. 

The examiner refused regi,^J^.^tipn. 051 X'^^.^^p^'^J^^m^x^^'^^^^^^^ 
viously registered by Cjcrtis, Ho,15,811,Aug. 28, 1888, used upon gun-^ 
powder, amjiiunition, and explosives, holding that as, the word black 
is descriptive, the word "Blackdiamond" too nearly resembles "dia- 
mond" to be registered. -tween the wo> 

In the case of ex parte Tillman and leadel, 1? MS.Deco, 307, 
a star of golden color, together with the words "Golden Star", was 
refused registration on the ground that such a mark was not suffi« 
ciently distinguishable from a representation of a star and the 
word "Star" without limitation as. to coloro Jjq vex parte Caire, 15 
0,G/,248, "Black Swan" was refused registration on the previously 
regi^ered mark "S^f^an" for the same class of good.So.;-i)|aa;r»epc parte 


«X«i3gxrtoO i&bwol 2iT.oY weM 9rfT 
«8Q8I ^a 9nx/L f»9&lo9a 

>SJ>I 9.a6,"I .65 eloV f^sf'iooaH 

oisaoiaaxjJiraoO gnitoBA 


efJJ8ts::^ b zb ''bnomlb^oBLE'* firrow grid" 1.e&^x^§er£ o& snisxrle-r b^Itsjh 

«inir.t!LPB ^Biiris 9^11 lo -rrid-nxBnoo 9alf)nB.ri:oT9in lo ssjslo ed& rrol sEibui 

nocrxr al)00s lo rioicttrx^osalD •rBliroitisg 9xW- ^a9viaoIqx9 boB ^noxd" 

.T.o.nTroo" -\ai&BBLd 3?n-i9cf f»osiX ax :?riBm: Qdt rEoicfw 
^oicr ^»baomBla*' 3£iBm 9.r' cioxi-Brrd-BlBgi: LesirlOT. T:9riinBX9 9r£T 

. zlo Bld blow add- as terfd- swJcfiloxf ^89Trx80lqx9 X)r£6 ^noltxninrriite ^TngLtvog 
-^xl)" n9lcriTC9a9T: ^Irtesn ood" **baomfilb2ioBLQ." bt6^ Qd& ^avxJ-glioagf) si 

o£>9i9d"Bls9rr ad oJ- ."I>ii:oxa 

^*=?08 ^«09a-3M "^I ^l9.5B9a boB nexirlXiT gJ-nae? X9 lo qbbo od& nl 

aj3w v"'XBd-a nsfjIoO" sJoaov,- er.o i.+iw igrtd-gsod- ^rrolor ^prog lo iBta fl 

-111/XB cf-on sjBvr ^[rrsm c iCotrs d^erld- IinrxoTrs grlcJ- ao cioitBV.&zh/iei bOBifisi 

grit 6i:ifi lets b lo r:0xct-Btn:93 9T:q:9'r b moil sIcfBxfBXi;^^-^^^^-^ ■^■EdTf9xo 

31 ^o'x^bO o&ibc[ x9 nl .tccl.oo od" as noxd-Bd-xiiixI d-xron'ld-xw •*Tsta" fiiow 

XL^isos.■vQ1q, BdJ- ao noxtB^cfaxT;9i bOBU^^'S. bbw "rcBwa :7lOBla" ^Sr^S^XOoO 

9J-^j?cT x9 nl osfioog. lo asBlo omB?. gxfd" tol "riswa" 2trrBffi Jbgtcsd^.xgoa: 

Hew York Powder Coo --2- 

Ginter, 22 MS. Dec. ,230, it was lield that "Opera Puffs" too closely 
resembled "Puff" to be registered, "SunsMne" was rejected on 
"Sun", in ex parte Clark, 22 MS«Dec.,327o In ex parte Hill/ard, 
41 MS.DeCa,240, "Hoyal Dutch" was properly refiised registEtition on 
"Royal" and "Q:ueen Bess" was refused registration on "Qjieen Bee"o 

The appellant contends that his case is not parallel to those 
referred to in the decisions above cited and refers especially to 
ex parte Cairo » He contends that the word "Blackdiamond" is not 
only different in appeargrice, but entirely different in meaning 
from the words "Black" and "Diamond", the former signifying m4ner« 
al coal and the other powder upon which it is used, being employed 
extensively in coal mining, hence the word is remotely suggestive 
of the use to which the powder is puta There does not seem to be 
any difference in appearance between the words, and if there is it 
is immaterial and so slight as not to be noticed by the ordinary 
purchasero Furtheirmore, there is no difference in sound, and an 
oral order for "black diamond" powder could be taken for one 
tMng onlyo 

As to the difference in meaning, the examiner has stated cor- 
rectly that the alleged difference is negatived by the fac simile 
presented by the applicant, in which instead of illustrating coal. 

no I>9cro=^u-.--.L aBw "enhi.aiiJi/a" .fietetaxsei 9cf od" "llxfl'* f>9ld"n939'r 
^£^villH 0&iB<i X9 nl .'?28^.09a.a}«I S2 ^jIibIS 9d-reg X9 ni ^"nirS" 

saorlcl- od^ JJellBif.q: d-ort si • M dvBrLd- a£)«9d-ctoo dTffiIIoci:q.e ox£I! 

od" ■''."lifiiooq:?,© 5*i:9'i9^ btis Jbad^xo &vo(^b aftoxsiogfj 9At nl o& f>9rc'^9l9i 

d-on si "BnoiosiJcjijfosia" f)r£Ow oxT^ d-Bx£d- 8X>«9d'xroo edl cBiiiBD ©ttEBq; X9 

gfiinsajd ni d-n-9ael3:>l>'^l9ii:d-jcie j-jxc^ ^son^^cfisqqr^ XiX drre 19 l^txf' ijlno 

"leniflT ^niirlxngxa T.eimio'l Bd.& ^^fmossiBlQ^ hns "^ojslg" aBrrow Bd.& icorrl 

l)9YoI<3:Jn9 gxcxgd" ^I)9aiJ" bx d"x ifoMw noqi; lajiTroq: i9x£d-o gxld" bos Iboo Ib 

9vid"59:.>^,j:rs ^Igtoxien: ai fitcow exit sonsjtf ^.^fliniin Ijsoo ft! -^levicfrgdxg 

9d' ©d" iffisee &on E9of> e^9jlT .d-jvcr si rtsf-wocr 9iid- ifoMwct esir gxid* I0 

&z si 9T9rId- 11 baB ^^Qbiovr sri& n:99?rd'9cf 9ofxBTr.orrr-F! 0! ©orrSigllib •'cns 

TjTXBniJbqio Bri& ^d beol&Oci ed oJr ton ss d-xfgils oa .5x16 Xe xts d-x?;r;mx ai 

xiB f);-CB ^j5n/J"0:; rri goxisiollil: orx sx eisxld" ^errojEtcsxTd"*!;/^ atezBiLoissq; 

9no 10I ns^Ied- ecf iilixoo mob'woq- "baosmlb :Aosld" lOl i9f>^o Xsio 

oYIj^o gnictd- 
-^00 bo&si-B BBXf 59nim6X9 9x£d- vB^-^^^^^^i ^--^ 9O09^9llifi 9x£d-'od- aA 
9liitUB oBl eji& Tfcf fi9-\rxd-fi39rr ax 9t)fl9'X9llxf> ieggllB 9xCd- d'sxCd" Y-^d-oei 

New York Powder Cc-S- 

he has shown an ordinary cut diamond. 

As regards the appellant's contention that he uses tliis mark 
on a different class of goodsmfroin that of Curtis, it may be said 
that the term "explosive" - the general class of goods « tised by 
the appellant, co-7-ers the gunpowder of Curtis, and the particular 
goods " blasting powder « of appellant, just as in the India Rub« 
ber Comb COo case, 16 MS .Do, 38, it was held that a statement embrae 
ing several distinct classes of merchandise made of hard rubber 
were of a single class, and in ex parte Kampfe Bros o, 58 MS.D.,cut« 
lery was held to cover safety razorso 

It is held that the word "biack" being descriptive, and "dia^. 
mond" having been registered for the same class of goods on wliich 
this applicant uses "Blackdiamond", the word presented for regis« 
tration so nearly resembles the registered mark of Curtis as to 
cause confusiono This conclusion is borne out by the practice, as 
indicated b3rsithe decisions cited abOTTCo 

The decision of the examiner of trade marks, refusing to reg- 
ister the mark of this applicant, is affirmedn 

-8 -.00 i9l)Tsro*I :?[rtoY weTI 

,bnosnBl£) .■^:"- -•- : - - -rvrorlE ssd 9x£ 

:?rrrj3in: sMd" sos-v srl d-^xft noitrtatnoo b' trtellscraB Qr!:& zbis^ai aA. 

I)XB3 3cr "^m cM ^ciitnirD 'lo d-Brlt rroiliriBb oo-g to aajslo J-n9*r9lllI) b rro 

Tf!" f95ir »" sficori 0:o ssbIo lB^9jrx9s and" ~ "ovxaolcpce" £ne& Qd& &Bd& 

riBliroitTsq ed& Jjns ^Eic)"TuO lo lefj-woqnjj^ ed& STgvoo^dTtBlIsgqB eiU" 

^diTJi J3j:f,nl 9jl.t r:j ••'^- '■yjj'L t^n£ll9g;qB Cto - loL-pr'-^' ^"i^sBlcf ~ Bboo^ 

estdmn i,&a:emad^&B b &Bd& bled s^w d-1^88^o(U3M 81 ^9sbo oOO cfmoO -xecf 

1!:^ 'i-Tj'L ' ^ ■ 'to 9l;" " " •^-— " "0 agasBlo vtoJn:J:c^ai£l XBtc9v93 §rrl 

"J-jj-n ^.d.aM 83\.so^a algnusS: schosg X9 al bas ^sbbIo slgnia b lo oi^iw 

mBrzosBi ■^J"9lJS3 19VO0 0& blod ssvr x^sL 

-BiJj" Ittb ^9VJctq:l^os9f) pnx9cr ":^ofijEcr'' f)iow arfcJ- irBdt bled ax cfl 

xloitfw no a£>oo: 'arlo 9iT^F grid" lol Ii9a:ed"sxg9^ n99cr gnxvaxE '•LnOM 

«i8Xp,9rr T.ol be&tiQBOiq: biovr orfJ- ^"J5nojERx£>2!!oJ3ia" a9ajj- d-fSBOxIqqjs aMi" 

r- •--id-iiTO ^0 :2t£BSs. £.9i9cf-aig9i oxCt aalcfingagi x^'^^a oa noxd-artt 

as ^sox&cr'^y •^^ •■■ ■ ■ v)-;j-o orrxocf si noxaJ/Ionoo aiilT orroxaxTlnoo gairso 

*9Trod"B fjed^xo anoxsioafi 9x£d-mccf be&colbal 
~29i ot gnxaix'ieo: ^zzliBss. sbsid- lo i9nxiitJS2:9 orCt lo noxaxosJ^ edl 

mbdsnfillJB sx ^trxeoxlgqc axrlJ- lo :iLiBn Qd& iq&bx 


A P P L i C A T r N 

'iMie uOQs not 

"'W ar^y kind of -waw -fi^a] Hd 

Ex parte Humber & Company, of Anierica, Ltd.. 

Decided Jtine 5, 1896, 

Recorded ItoYo 59, pa/^e 14? 


Acting Corajaissionero 

TMs is an appeal from tlie decision or tne examiner ofl tr'ade" ' 
marks rel^ising to register as ti trade mark for pneumatic tires for 
cycles a "series of stripes liaving contrasting coIot^/" rrirorpd- 

rated in tlie rubber of tlie tire or "^applied to, the suriface^ '6:8'\ 

all., 31 3 held that: 

paint or stamo 

In the specification it ,AS stated: , i.,. ".-._. ^ .... 

"The ■i«riLdth,lo cation or direction, as '.veil as the color ' 
of the stripes may be varied without departing from the spir- 
it of the trade mark k je.. JPor instance, th^ 'tread' portion 
may be made wider and of Q«^ color, and the rt'-wo, gide portions 
narrow and of a different and contrasting color, or vice ver- 
sa, or the stripes may all be made of the same mdth and of 

contrasting colors, andth^-X ?ias; tren^ in .straight or wa-vr. 
parallelisS." '^ "'* ^^a... ss^.ne^'s dec^ision. in "Ine 

The examiner's objection to registering'"^^ 'mieK is th-St^tSI'' 
above statement covers almost any kind of 's'tfi pes, "whether 'b'lue and 
black, red and black, red and 'blue, white and black, or any other 
combination, and that any such combinations may b 6 "either stt^lght 

T'l I T >i. I J 1 1 A 

.8901 ^S anxrL J:>9f)io9a 
^'^^L ^68 «IoV 5e£iioo9 jl 

orcenoiasxjimtoO ■QCil&oA 

ebs'j:& fto Ti^nijmsxa grid" lo noxBioef) grid* ijroil LB9q.qB nsi bx axrfT 

t:o:1 asiio" oxteiairanq: tot ^fxexa af-Btd" jt bb istaigsi ct grixBirtis'r sifliBm 

-ocrioorrx "^--^--- ^j.^iJi>fc';.;;J•^oo gxTXVBxT seqlifz lo asirtes" b aoloxo 

G 3B goB^XD-g OilcJ-^ot JbellgqB io a%lt &d& lo 'xocrcfxrc 9x£ct- nx £)9ChBrr 

»rfXBd-3 ^0 tnxBq: 

. ibed'B&Q ax &x. sxol&sollloeqz erl^ nl 

loloo sjid' aB II9tw sb ^iiold-oe^xf) ^o nol&sooL^.£ltbhT 9d:T" 

-*xxq;s Slid' EO^l j^aidrzBqeb &!Joriirhr bQi'm'ved -^si agcriid-a QiLf Io 

noxJrcoq 'f)B9n:.t' sxtd" ^soricJ-an-x nol .k k sTttBcr ebstf srld" lo ^x 

anoxirroq: aJ&la ow& axfch f^nB^^oIoo grto lo bne lebbrr ebBsm ed y^sn 

-zsv 90 XV 'xo ^loLoo §nitaBtJ"froo bcm tneiellxb b ^o boB "woTaBn 

lo f?nB x[J"£iJ:v;- ossbb exiJ" lo 9f)Bn od ILb x^^ a9q:x^j-s esid- io ^Ba 

\yB-vr ICO .tiv retj-a nl Jbrrgicf Y'^jit xsif.& finB ,.a:£oloo ^nid^aBttrroo 


9x£t dK ■ * sfoBm Bsi& gnlrrad-sxggi od" noxto9t,rfo a'lgnmexg gilT 

JbjciB gxrlcf o:9iid-9x{w^a9gltcd-s lo bahi XP^ i-BomlB aigvoo tft9iii9d-Bd"a gvocfs 

iex[.to x--^ "'^0 ^>;DJ3.r^'' .f:A.? ed-irCw tSxrlcf iiriB loi ^:^OBlcr Lob figrr ^>!oBlcf 
tr.r-r- i-g/itlg grf ^'.f ;■ r:^^oxc^B^xcfHOO /lox/a ijriB tBxIt BrcB ^rroxd-BnxcfHOO 

number & C0.-2- 

or tvavy parallelism, altlioiigli tlie applicant's fac siMle does not 

even sliow any kind of yra'vy parallelism; and that the statute did 

not anticipate the allowance of any such broad statemento His 

second objection to registering the mark is that even if the ap« 

plicant is restricted to the precise stripes used it sho-ald not be 

registered, as "it is settled that ornamental coloring alone, while 

it may form an element of a trade mark cannot of itself constitute 

a technical trade marko" ' 

To sustain his first point the examiner cited several deci« 

sions^ the first of which is the Supreme Co"urt case of Canal Co. 

VaClark, 13 TiTall,, 311, where it was held that: 

"Ho one can claim protection for the exclusive use of a 
trade mark or trade name which would practically give him a 
monopoly in the sale of any goods other than those actually 
produced or made by himself. If he could, the public would 
be injured rather than protected, for competition would be 
destroyedo Nor can a generic name be employed as a trade • 
mark, and the exclusive use 6f it be entitled to legal pro« 


The examiner also cited the Commissioner's decisions in the 
cases of ex parte Adam Roth Grocery Co., 62 O.Go,315; Ex parte Ham- 
ilton Disinfectant Chemical ¥orks, 2? MS .Do, 342, and ex parte Du« 
luth Imperial Mill Co. ,52 MS.D«,379o To sustain his second point 
he cited the cases of ex parte Landrath, 31 0oG<»,1441; Pleisclimann 
et al. Vo Starkey, 25 Ped. Rep., 127; Pisher Vo Blank, 33 N.Ea 

-S-.oO ■£> Tacfifflj-H 

&on c.Qob ell&lB obJ. s* triBO ilccqB exit d^isojl&LB ^.mBlZeLLsiisq yyBvr 10 

bib e±jr^BJ"3 3rL& tssl^ onB imlLeLLB^tBq -prevr lo finlst \5ci6 woxEs nsve 

sis m&aemetB&B bBO'iKi doUB xhb Io eorcewoIlB 9i£J- ed-fjqiloxd-nB J^on 

«qB 9cL& 1x neve cterl^ ai :itBss. Qsi& gniied-aigerr ot noid-oe'tcTo baooeB 

eo &on blTToi^r'. d"! JfJsHJT abcrlrrJ'a SBxoeig exiJ' od- f>9d-oiid-ae^ sx tneoxlq; 

elMw^enolB srixioloo lBdTf9JK6nto &Bd& bel&&6z ax J-l" bb ^fieietsxge^ 

Q&SJ&li-Br'O'^ "-Lq^&I lo &oc:r:Bo zLispi ebs^f b Io dTiernels rtB Httol: ^CBic tx 

■ "osCxBui eftBid- IB0xml^9c^ £ 

-loQjj IB10V9S bs&lo ieiixssBX9 arid' tflxoq[ taixl 5I1C nxBtairs oT 

• oO IsrcBO ^0 9aB0 drcxfoO 9X(i9iq;ir3 exit sx xEoxrCw "io d-aixl 9x[d- ^anoia 

:d-Brkt f,i9rl 3bw &1 eiaxLyr ^IXS ^.IIbW 81 ^jIobIOoV 

^ ' ■ ' ^ 

js lo 9cxr evxsirloxe sxi& 10I aox&oofoiq saxBlo riBO 9no oE" 

B mM evlg ^^■•"■JSsld'OB'rg filfrow xiolxiifr 9^n aJ&B'rcf- 16 aCrrejir QbBi& 

XllBUtos eaoxCd- oBxif lexf-i'O aJboog XP^ ^0 9Ib8 exit nx xZ'^lonom 

bluoyr oxLdxrq exit ^,bliJOO exL 11 .lleemxxf Tjcf ebBsx tco f/O0Xx5oTcc[ 

ecT Jbl0ow. noxtitQgjEOo ttol ,,fi9to«to^G[ neiit ^ealteT Jbexytni ad 

e^^B'it 3 as Bexolgjjie ed* eioen cirtexiegB fiBO ^oH obaxoi^&eb 

"Oiq Lb-qqI ot fialtxtxTS 9cf &x 16 aexr eviarloxa 9r[* toB ^^Ciexir 


exit al an0X5X09ib a'lerroxBSXjacroO bxL& l>etlo oeIb •xerriiKBTrs 9r£T 

-smE ettsq: xS i3I8^cO.O S3^,o0 x^oooiQ xL&oK meM. et^rsg xe lo Beaso 

-xra 9tiBC[ X9 BriB ^Si'S^.a.SM *?S ^a:^^rro■W iBOXirrgrfO taeto9*irfxaxa notlx 

tnxoq; finoooa aM rrlBtsxra oT «Q'?8t.a.aM SS^.oO IIxM iBx^ecrinl xifisL 

nrfnr.;-r'....J-nr'Tr ;. TKt-I^.O.O rn , r'chPT^rsj et'XBg xo ^o bsbbo erft bB&lo exL 

• ii.M: 88 tiflfiBia .v rtexlaxl t^JSI ^.qsH «Jb9lI SS ^Y9^rti:jBta oV .Is t9 

Hum-ber 85 Co, -3<<^, 

Re-p. 1040, and Putnam Nail Co. VoDulaney, 21 Atl. Repo,391o 

It is tEue tliat the statement used by tlie applicant is broad, 

vrj.tjioo:t. ll.rdtation as to color or 

but it does not seem tliat tliere can be any valid objection to its 

anu regisxraxxuri aliO/M.. - 

re<^i£?tration on tliis ground, so, long as it is clear and definite. 

Nor is it tliOTirlit tliat applicant's mark is "ornamental coloring 
J^^o^ IS iu o^uub^v i-j- -atiou as^ said to be "a parallel^ 

alone." Instead of falling under -^liq defisions above referred t^o, 
it seems to be witnin the do ctr ine . 1 ai d down by ex parte Roxbury 
Carpet Co.,18 MS.Dec.,423, where it was saidg ..efc:)^r 

"It is a mistake to say that it (the mark) has no sub- 
stantial limitation. That it is a line of color running the - 
lenPth of the fabric defines it very clearly to the irand^snd 
both from the nature of the material it is designed to dis- 
tin^ish and the manner of sale, it must be ob-7io-as that the 
particular way of aT)plying the mark is the only one that woul 
certainly and fully identify the merchandise in the market. 

"The essence of the mark lies in its contrasting coloiv. 
Ihether white,black or gray,or anything else, it matters not^, 
so long as it strikingly distinguishable from the body of the 
fabric,the carpet -backing with which it is inwoven^ men do 
distinguishable, it quicltly abstracts the eye, and 'bhus by 
association serves to indicate origin or ownersMpo 

"The mark being of the character stated,I shOTJdd be^un- 

willinc^ to confine the applicant to any one color in making 

it, when it is so obvious that the real arbitrary character 

would thus escape adequate protectiono Nor need there be bxj 

limitation as to the partictilar portion of the backing, i/e/, 

at what part of its width it be appliedo" 


see also section 1194 of Coddington's Digest of Trade Marks, 

where it is saids 

"A stri-oe on cloth, composed of one or more threads of 
different colors, woven either at the border end, and new by 
TDOsition or arrangement, is a good trade mark. (Article 1, 
law of 1857o)" 

-8- .oO 5 i^dsisj] 

EcM od- a:oi&o&ido blLsv xcm ed obo sieiit ted& msop, tort aeoJb &1 tud 

»e&£Cil' bnB ^cbsIc ... . .i s.r ^rrol os ^bnuofg zhi& no no x J-b rtcteig 9 -r 

^^alioLoo iBd-namentco" ex 2£iBirt a'chxsolIqgB &Bd& trCgJcroiid- tx sx loK 

X^trcfxo^; 9ta:B(j X9 x^ nvro£ bisl 9rrxtd"ooJ:. 9r£cf nxxfJ-xw 9cf ot axis 9 a d"x 

-rfxra Of. (:?t%BJii od&) &1 &B£L& -^s o& e±p&Bitii s ax ±1" 

9r[c^ gnxnnxr^ t:oIoc "io ortll b si d"x ctexIT on'Oxd-Bd-JciiixI iBi&astz 

bcip.^bcii^, ed.& ot tjIibqIo x^by tl Bdalleb ^oitdBl erL& lo rCchgnal 

-3x1) ot fjgngxasf) ax d^x LBSM-Stem B£L& 1o siu&Bn exit inotcl xL^tocf 

BsLt tBiLf aJ/oxvcTo ed cfaxM d-x ^elsc lo tdcmBm. 9rlt I)nf5 xEaxx/^nxt 

Ijj-o?: iBilt 9no tl^io exit ax ^Iisn 9x[cf grfX^Igo-B lo y^Tr ■iBlxroxdrtsq 

• d'OiJltB;;: giij nx erilDrcsrloism 9r[t ^^-^'^i^Q^i XX^^J^- ^ne ^jlnxBdrceo 

.vsoloo 2^i'^ss^^^03 3^^ J"'^ asxl jtsLBz gxtcf lo 90110339 sxCT" 

ivJ"on a^od'd-Bm tx ^9al9 ■gcihit-irxB 10 ^-^ig rro ^CoBlcf^ed-xifw tt9rId"9xi!W 

9rlt lo X^od ssL& moil 9lcfjsxiaxj7gnxd-axf) X-Csnx3fxita tx as grrol oa 

ofe norfW •rtovowni si; tl doidsr rL&l-n gxrMoBu-d-OqTBO 9r[d"^ox*rdjBl 

•^cf ai/rl* J:)r:B ^9^9 QXtJ" 5toB^d*acfB -yjljioxirp d^x t9ldBr£sxxr§nxtai£) 

•giria^srtvro 10 nxgxoio e&Boibcii o& as-vrcsa noxtBxoosaB 

"Xtxr 9cf f>IvxoxC3 I^D9C}-Bd-8 TOcfoBtsxTo grfld" lo gnx9d" slniBiir axIT" 

gnxi'iBjffi nl TO)! 00 9ao x^ib o& &cssolLqqs bs1& gnxlnoo o& gHxIIrw 

IB&OBIBSLO Y.IB'T.&ldlB IgQI BKd' &Bn.& aiTOXVcTo OS SX &i. CiBdVT ^&1 
XPB Bd Q'liBrL& bBBa IOK •nOXd'OSd'Oiq evtsxrpSfjB 9rrB03 9 BJjXlt bisjovr 

\b\s: ^2'^!:l-A)Bd sxid- lo cfox^tcoq; ^nslirold-^csg 9xld- o& sb noxtBct-xxryxI 

"«Jb9xIggB Bd tl sLtbhr ad"! lo d-^xeg tBiCw &b 

^v^LibU 9ibB^T lo d-a9gxa 3'nod^,nxf)IioO "io ^GII xioxJ-oea orIb 992 

:f>iBB BX &1 9T:9ifVT 

lo aj £a-Xi.J' eioni 10 9ixo lo L^eaocrmoo ^dtoLo no ogitta A" 
Xd wen ba.B ^fino lobiod BrL& i^B ibsL&Ib n9vow ^aioloo d-no^iolllJb 
t.L 9lcxd-iA.) •:^IaBxr[ Bbsit Jboog b sx ^d-nojcrggnB^iB 10 roxtxaocT 

"(o'JSei lo -wBl 

Humber & Co. -4» 

In ex parte Woodbtory, 46 MSol4, a trade mark consifsting of 
"the representation of lace", witlio-at limitation as to color or 
cliape, "was lield to be a valid mark and registration allowed. 

In ex parte Jano^witz, 56 MSoDeco^SOl, tlie essential feature 
of tlie mark presented for registration was said to be "a parallel- 
ogram divided diagonally into two triangles^ one dark and tlie oth- 
er light." The objection to registration was that the words 
"dark" and "light" included many colors and shades, and therefore 
the claim was not definite o It was held on appeal that if the cas 
was amended to set forth the two triangles as of contrasting col« 
ors, there would be no objection to registration.. 

The decision of the examiner in refusing registration is 

«.4»- ,00 £ tedmfK 

to tcoloo 0& SB noict-BJ-xxttxI d'xrojld'Jbv ^"9ojbI lo noIctetnoBStcjgi 9x£d-" 

9ii;J-B9l iBitnssae exlci- ^.lOS^.osa.aM 89 ^stiwon£"t» gt^csq; xe nl 

-leXlB^iBq: is" 9d dd" Lisa bbiv tiQl&&i&'drgei 'zol bQ&ctssBiq^ ^Cibjh 9iii- lo 

'•d&o 9iL& firte ^CnsB ono ^asIgrrBXTrJ- ovrd* otnl TrllBfio^xfi j&eBrvxfc xn^rr^o 

BJbrtow arid- i'ei:i& 5bw nox-JBid-axgs:!: od" noxtoo'tcfo 9x£T ".d^jlp^ll rre 

gtolsT-SA^j- boB ^39l)BxC8 Mb aioIoo'Tfte^ Bsfiiriorri '"trCT.xI" 'l)fte''-'"3lT:Bfc'' 

3B0 exCd" Ix tBxId- lB9ggB no blad aBW, tX o9d*lnil9f) d"orf sj^vt ir^xGlo 9xCd- 

>• . ,. ...,,• ^ ' ' 

-loo gjfrxcJ-aBtd-no' '■ '^ si3 BeL-o.cml'ii- '6ir& 9d& rf-dncot. cfe- ot &65n9mG a^w 

.noxd-Ba:;J'axs9^ 0::d- r:oId;oetcf<> o^ Qd" BIt/ow strgrlJ- ,.arro 
- £ •-- * '-'^taisa^ gaiaixlgi ax isnxuisxQ 9ild- 1q poisioef) esil 


of ^ 

Ex parte Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Companyo 

Decided June 5, 1896o 

Recorded Vol a 59, Pagre 150. 

S. T« Fislier, 

Acting Commissioner: 

TMs is an appeal from tlie action of the examiner of trade- 
marks refusing to register a trade mark for wlieel tires, tlae es« 
sential of -wM oh. is defindd as a "red or reddisL. figure of defi- 
nite shape and limited dimensions on or local to a portion of tlie 
tire, having a definite outline" « 

The examiner refused to roister the mark on the ground that 
the application is not restricted to any form or. dimensions; that 
the mere statement that any one of an unlimited ntimber of kno^vm 
geometric figures may be used, provided it is colored red, is mat-^ 
ter too infedinite to constitute a trade marko 

The. fac simile of the mark shovm is described in the language 
of the application as a well-defined figure having in general a 
diamond shape, -sirith circular sides forming a convexo-convex figure 
and dyed or othervdse coj-ored red or reddish, upon the marks in 
actual use. To the registration of such a mark the examiner has 
no objection. 




.Vs^gffioO ledcfxrS S sboII novoW ao&zoE eJ^'^^cr xS 
.3681 ^e oiTxrl, iiafixosa 

^•rexlsil »T .3 
: ns ;:^ 1^''^ '■■■ Ip^-BO 5^ n 1 1 oA 
^ebs-s.^ 10 rtsnteBxs srCt lo ao'i&OB erlt xhoiI iBeags n.9 bx aMT 

^x-i9i: ^10 9iim.n ifsxf.Jb9Tt 10 £)9i" -s SB Bfinlleh sx xic ixlw lo iBxtnes 
9ICCJ- 10 fiold-ioq B od- LboqL 10 HO snoxBrigHxf) be&lmiL bc^B egBxls ecJ-in 

«"9nxIc)-JT0 sJricillQb b gnrvBif ^sixd- 

d-Bxrd- Bmxoi§ arid- no ^-ItcBXE Bii& le&zl'^i o& beziflQi i9nx;iiBX9 9xlT 

ferr.t tanoxanaisxiD - --"^ --b ot fisd-oxii-aai J-ort 3x ciol&£o'iLq.<yB Bdi- 

[iS'.'oipi 10 iscfiiiurc be&mncm hb Id sno ^fiB &srLir taQmefsi-B eiesa er:& 

-d-Biti 8x ^691 f)9ioXoo sx tx bebhroiG ^bezis e€ -{^ta e.Qiss^n oiict-9iii09s 

.jIiBm 9LB'!Cc^ B stjyd-xd-sxioo o& 9i-ialbBlnl ood" i9t 
^^BxrgrtBl sxld- nx S9cfxi?a9£> si rnvoxfa :?f'!:BH 9.ri:t lo slxmxr, obI sxfT 

' ■:-iioi.e f- crP A-rr/gii £)9axl9fi~Il9w B 8B HO xtB oxIccgB oxft lo 

g-rxTiil xovnoo-oxg-^nor. g sfixirrol sof^xs iBliXoixo xltxw ^eciBrts bnomBsb 

nx srfiB.T. arid- noqif ^d-rAbbsi io £^9-r Jbeio^oo eBXvnerj^to io be^ fins 

3Bxf. i9nxiii.ex9 ex'Li- jTigiti b r£oi:;3 lo riOxd-Bid-aiggt 9itd- oT «oaxr lBi;d-OB 

« no X to 9 [.do on 

Boston Woven Hose & Itubber Co, -2- 


But the applican^t is not satisfied to limit tlie case to tliis 
definite nark. He has expanded it by using tlie following language 

••The mark has been mUT^'^considerabl;^ varied' '■irr'-shape^rtH^^ 
leading distinctive feature being the red or reddish color of th« 
mark. S S The particular shape of "the sTmbd'l ,sho-mi maj'^e ^ - 
and i-s some-what varied,the essential feature of the trade marit "be« 
ing a red or reddish figure of definite shape and limited dimen-- 
sions on or local to a poartion of the tire, having a definite out« 

And in the arrangement of February 19. 1896^ the applicant say 

"•':•..•) is too ir;definito to he re.i^l.vterf. 

s ays : 

."Ifhether this mark is in the shape of an oval, an ellipse, a 
diamond,or any other similar oblong, square, or circular figure, he 
(the purchaser) recognizes at once the distinctive feature of a 
local mark having the peculiar color distinguisloing the goods" » 

- /• 
The application, however, is not even confined to such geo« 

metrical figures as are enumerated, but to any figure "having a 

definite outltneo" From this it seems clear that applicant con- 

sidera the color, without reference to the form or shape, of the 

mark as the essential features 

As is well said by Browne on Trade Marks, section 269, sec" 

ond edition: 

"form is necessary to maJce color an essential feature of a 
trade marko In otlier words, color alone cannot legally be deemed 
to be an arbitrary symbol. That form may be a geometrical figure, 
or the representation of an object having a fixed, definite shape, 
and being susceptible of description: thus, a circle, a square, a 
triangle; or an arrow, or an anchor, .or a monogram; or any of an 
i:TT#R-^YTrsrtrB: infinite variety of objects in nature or art, which may 
be easily described and readily apprehended. But nothing short 
of this requirement cotild be sufficient, k/ k A trade mark must 

^cMisK & esoH navoW ao&^oE 
,i,j ot SBBO ex£* HM o^ ben.l^. ton «! tr...: ^^:t ^^^ 

orrt RPPr ex TiBxracfsl 10 c^fi9IIre^^B'r.'r£ 9xlt ni baA 

i,.^. ..x^ll W 0. * .Mta.o^« e- .. =o«^n I.ot..o« 

e,,, .0 .e,«a. .0 .-xo. ea. o* oone.e.e. t.oxl«, ..oloo oxl* .«.x« 

„-.-, .ess IXOW09. .«toM 06^-xT n.c V-t^oM ^d 6ix.. II9- 3l =A 

tnold-i£>9 fine 

.o.;.,n. lB0l..enoes a ed y^-^-^'^^^^^-J^ ,;'?n;ir.n9.9..l9. exit .0 

Boston ¥oven Plose &. Rubber Co. -3- 

be sometMng tliat ceax impress its peculiarity of configuration 
upon t2ie memory, as plainly as it is impressed on broods » ¥e can 
describe and recognize a Maltese cross, a diamond ^7itMlv a circle 
a five-pointed star, a flag of fixed proportions having a certain' 
number of stripes and stars, or national emblems. Then color 
May well be a valid essential constituent; but it. is hardly within 
the ragge of possibility to convey an adequate idea of a thins 
that has no fixed invariable limit s «" 

The present case falls within the doctrine thus laid downo 
The case in its present form is too indefinite to be registered' 
as a legal trate mark. 

The decision of the examiner of trade mark is affirmed, 

-8- .00 lo-iffx/H " 9- or r'OvoY.' ciotBOE. 

rtBO 9W .sfioog no /jesBeiq-jTtx si tx bb Ylf^i^J^T s^ ^vtrojirsm sift noqir 

nxBt^eo B gnxvBjl snoid^ocjotcg J&ey.x^ lo gBll «? tTPta ijscfnxog-svll; b 

loloo nexiT •axcelcfiES iBnoid-jfin -xo ^stCBCft? le&i^&t ^t iedss.jj^ 

ahL&lvr x^^'^J^ ai: <!"> tircf tt/tSL'-d-ld-arTOO lBxd-fir9aa9 bllBV s "bd Ila^v tjgM 

grriift e. lo bo.Bx sJejjpqLb hb -^svrioo od" Y^-^-fid'-^ssoq: ^o eggsi self 

". atxgrxl sIcfgxTBvrf^ J&exxl oxi sBxf tBilt 

»rrwoJb I^xbI airxCd" 9fix"xd-ooJb arid- nlxld-xw hIIbI: easo -tasaeiq: ■gxCT ' 

I-^9'i9i-alB9^ 9<~^ Oct- e'tjcnxlsfiffx ood- ax srtol d-naaaiq; atx iil b^.bo esil 

.^IlBJil 9flSTd- IbsVI B 3B 

ab'^ ,-•_-■■■- " -'-,- . -'.^irj-j- «|-Q t£9nXj:iBX9. Slid" lO 0OXSXO9f) 9X[T 

Sanford C« Haviland. ^'^b^at. ^^j^ "Alpine 

Decided June 5, 1896. ' ^xf;j'a 

trade nary, oit «■;;!, -?•■;: ::■.-, 

Recorded VoL/ 59^ Page 154 . 

S. To Pi slier, "^^^^^ ^'^''"' 

Acting Coramissioner: 

:- .fea"^ 
TMs is an appeal from tlie decision of tlie examiner of trade- 
marks, refusing to register tlie vrord "Alpine"'- "as 6. tra^de mecrtofor 

3. De: 
"broncliial lozenges" • Tlie refusal is "based iipon the groun"d tliatft^e- 

tMs mark has already been registered fori;l£e' 1^^^-^'l^^sOf goods, 

' very . ;\G-Mt^.^ .... ._ , 

as sliDTOi by Certificate N0o8,387,issued June 21,18&l,to ¥eber,^Tlio 

used the mark on "herb teas, herb balsams,ana extract s", and that tli 

^■''U- f^-;;^. ■•^^ rn-O^n-: ->r.-.:. -^. 

the TTord is geo^iajhical. ^^^® ^s purely fancl- 

U3 US' ' , 

Considering first whether "bronchial Tozeliges" are of the 
same class of goods as "herb teas, herb balsams, and extracts;" 
"VQiile it may be said that they areunder the general class of medi- 
cinal preparations or druggists' supplies, yet they are not so 
closely related that one wo\ild ve mistaken for the othero The or« 
dinary purchaser ordering "Alpine Lozenges", would know that his 
order was not properly filled if he received herb tea or herb bal" 
sams or extracts. Nor would a druggist dealing in these different 
goods confound one with the other; nor is there any valid reason 

K I T A I - 'A 
• fjfCBlivjsH bO £)ioxaea 
.8G8I ^5 onuL bebloed 
• :^^I 9-\e1 tea \.IoV f»95 rtoo9JI 

1 19 no i s E XOTTTo ; :; r^ x to A 

"Sf^Bid- lo isnliiLSxe sxl.t lo noxaiosf) sxft xrrorrl lB9C[g^ hb bx axxCT 

101 :>l's:Bin ebBit b s.e •*9ni:gIA" Jb'row erLt 19^5x59* oJ- r^nxai/i9i ^a:5f'i:Biir 

feild- Bnxrots ex£«}- noqxr fiesecf si: iBaxTle'!: srfT ."aesfissol IfiMonorrcf 

^8X5003 loaai;Io estiBB erL& tcol JbsasJ-aigao: noacf ■'^boiIb aBri ^ftem axrCd" 

or[w^i9cr9¥ oJ-^I88ItIS enirT, l)9xrB8x^'?88^8oOTI sd-BonichieO Y^ nwrofla afi 

iJ* J-Bxl.d- £>rrB^"ad-0B'xte9 finB^ainsslBcf cfrrgxE^aBgd- cfiorC" no :iiBK srL& bezu 

*lBrI-rjErmfgo9^-\ sj biovr 9x1 1 
9r£o lo etH "aggrtssol iBixfonoacT" Tgxfterfw taixl gnxigfixaxToO 
'•:3d-.-5P.i:fe9 .DrtB^BjirftalBcf cfT:9/i\aB9d- cftgxf" •c£. 3B0052 lo ssbIo 9iiiB3 
-x£)9nt lo BBBlo lBi9xr9g oxiJ- lebtareiB y:9ri.& ±Bi£& blm od -^s: tl glicflT 
oa d-on g-XB -vjgxfd- d-9-, ^-ellqigLfa 'acJ-axgnjJif) "xo 8rtoxt£TBci9iq Ib/ixo 
"10 oxiT oi9x£cJ-o erL& 10I n9:jfedaJbi 9v Blxrow 9no i-Rdi- f)©chel9i \;X9aoIo 
"■■ +.^'-1- r.rQ^-^r £,ijj-ow^"a9gn9soJ gnxq-lA" 3x1x19 Jbio leaBriioiiroc Vtsnxf) 
"iBcf cfigxi 10 Bed- cTiexC f)9vxoo9i 9x1 Ix f)9im ^Iiggonj J-on afiw lebio 
drtois'ilxfi oa9xCd- nx gxrilBSf) &zl^-c^snb b bissov 10M .acfoBiteg 10 aiima 
rtoaB9i JbxiBv YfiB 9i9xld- ai ion iiex£J-o 3d& xiJ-xw 9no Lnrxolnoo aJboo§ 

S.C.IIavlland -2- 

tor believing that -^pl.e Lozenges" ax-e Impregnated wit:. ..^pme 
herb tea." or »Alplne herb balsams" or "Alpine e^racts",re.errea 
to in the traae .ark =ited,ana itmls not believed that the regis- 
trant intended to include in the cla-> of „.„^ 

I.J10 cia^s of goods named by him 

bronchial lozenges. 

^ to the geographical feature of the mark: it appears to 
fall rttMn the second class of cases referred to in e^ parte 
Hondley, 5. ^, ^ Bec.,40.. it is t^, that ^l^lne means pertaining 
to or connected ^th the Alps. But it has other meanings, as any 
lofty mountain; very high; ele'vated. Ihe use of this word would 
not convey the idea that the logen.e's were made in the Alps or 

from anjrtMng groiro there, its use In t>i-fc ^« « • 

XX s Tioe m tMs case is purely fanci« 

^1, and as thus used it is a valid trade mark. 

The decision of the e.xaminer of trade marv's is reversed^ 


„3x-^e. o.i* tBrl^ fi9V9xXad-^fon,.x^.tx 5nB..etxo .^ 

. .-o .^n-. exit nx ef>xrIonx ot 59^n9:fnx tnaiO" 

39sn9soI lBXXi;oflorcd 


• 35 

. o:^ B«^9ciqB tl :*t£m..ex.t 1. o^ix±bo1 . - 

, ot ^e^.ole.. .OBBO lo BBBlo^nooae exit nir;.tx. UbI 

,ni.iBt.9c,..na9.,enxaIAtBxir^fn^^^^^^ -°^^ , 

. .9. .9xr.^o ..-r tx tM oB^IA exit xlti. L^etoennoo .0 ot 

. |)IJX0W b^OW BXrxt lO 9BXr,9Xl.J. •.,,-. 

.0 .ctIA..9xlt «i o^B.. e-xev. .o.«9boI exit tsxl^ 

•Kt -rr ^-^u -tl .9iex£t nwoT.a gnxrlchrnB iiioil: 
clonal ^le-xx;^ Bi eBBO exxlt .:x o.x; ^. _ ^ ,^ 




v-ay 27, 1896. ij., M. H; 

U. S. Patent Office. p 

Kx parte Z. J. Countie <fc company. 

Trtide-Murk for Sever&ftes. 

F.ecorded Vol.59, 

Petition. - P-l^^, .ilu-xt 

Ai^piicttion for rerist.ration filed, "fay 22, 1695. 
> _ _ _ 

"essrs. nhandlec 5: Ohanales for applicants. 

This is an at pey.l from the decision of the examiner of trade- 
marks, refusinjj ^o rerister as a trade-mark the words "Ronan Punch, 
in connection with the 'ords non-alcoholic, or words of similar 
import. " 

As the case was orirrinally filed the appellants stated that 
the essential feature of ;,heir mark v/as the words "Roman Punch." R€g 
istration ^ras refused in viev/ of the norraissioner ' s decision in the 
case of ex parte Rowe, 50 " , 1G6, where it was held t-at the 
..ords "Cherry Cocktail" are descriptive when ao plied to a non-alco- 
_)lio drink, and reference v/as maao to "Cooling Drinks and Dainty 
'"lips," 'f'errin.-'ton, London, 187 2, pp. 221 to 223, to show that Roman 
un'^h io a baverare containing alcoholic liiiuor, 'HyxQ Century T)ic- 
tionary defines Ronan punch as "a -/ater ice, flavored usually with 
lemoa, and mixed with ruiq or other spirit." 

T have carefraiy considered the case o f ex part e Rowe , and 
fully agree with the doct-inc therein lu.d down and think the rejec- 
tion was well taken, as coming within nuid doctrine. Evidently the 
appellants are of the r.^ome opinion, a they acqiiiesctid in I'ne rejec- 
tion and attempted to overcome it by amendin.; the case to indicate 

, , . UtJnx: zk 

-. -.-loiEXocJi; ?; ' i.-.- 1, •.■.■. -• 

^J:r^^ii.(l bru. a^ni'.a ^niXo- ^^^ ^^'' ^''^ ' ^'^'" 

. iloriooXs anim 

•j8 idrt^ro to ^:_ •' ijsxif" bnt^ 

__; . iiiricr fcnis nwob nlonorfcT onx ■''■-^ 

IXqw noi * 

,^o89iup^ ^ .xioxniqo afi-- 

•' X fir. sen i;- ■ ■ 

.■hat they useii these words h» a trude-raark on non-alcoholic bevor- 
a-^es. The uttemptea liraitutj-on oi the murk orir;inuily presented oj 
theuddition of the woras "non-alcoholic" i^ iraciateriul, and such 
words would not be noticed by the ordinary purchaser. The sJilicnt 
feat re of the mark ia "Roman Punch," and this is what the appel- 
lant's goods Vi'ould be known by in the trade, 

AS was stated in the case of ex parte T'etropolitan "''atch Oo, , 
44 -^^..neo. ,272: 

"The en.'^entiul f«atiire of a trade-mark is not v/hat the re^^ 
iatrant <;lects to de.^lgnate as such, but that which strikes tho 
public as its rnost salient feutaro, •xn'^ as lendinj'^ character to 
the entire rnark." 

The oxaniner in hia answer to the appeal states that another 
.-round for refiiGin/r to register the mark is the geographic charac- 
ter of the word "Roman." In view of the otherwise non-rcgistrable 
character of the rcark, this new ground for rejection need not be 
con.'-. idored here. 

"^he decision of the examiner off trade-narks in refusing regis- 
tration is affimed. 

. , Pisher, 

. ot inrc COiJuni ." ?, ione r , 
.Tune 6, lb96. 


f^fj^^, ai bSJBSe ftBW RA 

'•>tJ::tno Bi'fvT 

rAi ei now© )n£nBj: 

•col br 

.,,icij • .iw-i9rlio 9ri 

.JbarrtniB ai 

T'ay 26, hs9i:. 

U. S. PHtent Office. 

Ex parte 'i. Rosenber^er ' ft Company. 

TrHde-IiHrk for Cigars? Recorded Vol.59, 

""""Tfo p. 162. 

Petit ion. 

plication filed July 8, 1895, 
issrs. "A^ood & 3oyd and Jas. L. Norris for appliofinta. 

This is an- appeal fro;:i the decision of the examiner of trade-*: .. 

innrks refiJicing tO' register as a trade--ffiark for pifja^s "A rtijpreeofir 
tu'-ion of a ipundle of cigars with two transverse stripes -across its, -^ 
fHce,one n&ar the .end, and thyse connected by twO diagonal strijpiis 

''onaing each other at or near the center of ; the length of the 
.■--ce of the bundle," 

The essential feature is said to be "the stripes as ropresent-. 

id on the face of h representation of a bundle of cigars." 

. . . x*'-^.'^ 'r':.'-: ' ■ ■. ■ In tau doctrine i^nuf; <.:;iun'';i':.iT, ^:u, 

T>r: for rcfuslnr' re ■Tistration is that the matter shown 

is H representation of the merchandise as it is put up, and as such 

i?. ],;iy descriptive in character, 

in Guse of ox p u rt o Spencer, 14 MS. Dec, 15^-;, where a 

■ . o...' u lathe with the overhead countershaft laid across its 
bfui, vith the words "John E, Spencer" above it and "Standard 
KltKT' "" ' -TiS" below it, v,'aa presented for rB,3istration as a trade- 
; xrk for lathes, it iTa.s held that such a mark was descriptive and 
-on Y/uo refused. Substantially tlie same ruling was made 
in '.:.o cases of ex parte Pratt and Fanner, 10 O.G-.,6Gu, and ex 



,Qc.IoV foobtoosH .Bw-'o 

ow:r rfUw anas- " ""^'***^ 

OV .R-t8l 


o ri :i 

.i. .'. 

'V ,1 rv 

r^oiia SB bm* .q" ^^^'^ ^- '•« asAbn^rio-^^" ®-^ 

i5 B^arfw .lOoneqR e^tfS 

9r)ym eew anxXi/t ewwa 



,QV . . .>- f. - „ _S 

In the rooent case of ex parte f5llvf-rrnann & ao«, 59 ^^S.Tjec, 

VG, w>;f-rv: .li.. pi i cants sought to rerinter as a trudQ-mark for suppon- 

dor« '»the ropresontation of h hole formed in the front or back fac- 

-ng ntrip of a R'lspender or like article," to shov; a v/ire f^nuze 

otreagthfjning piece, it, was hold that - 

•a picture or a photograph of an article of naniifactiiro is not 
ry/ristrnble a,= a trade-Kurk, for tho s-arne reuson that «-ui accu- 
rnte v^irbal description of such an article would not be ref^is- 
trable. Other deniers in suspenders have a right to use true 
pictures and photographic representations of their goods, as 
well HB to use t?ie ordinary and -wall-known words of the English 
language in describinf; thoin, and this is so whether the appli- 
cants are protected by a patent upon their goods or not, for the 
petition <\oo.:^ nor. sMO'f that a^ natters now stand, t'-^e npplican's 
are the Kg owners of ail the rights under any patents which say 
have been -ranted. Even wore this so, thcsi' -ire cupuble of sep- 
arate ownership and whoever may hereafter becone the true cv.nor 
of rig?its under a patent will have and must have a right to ac- 
c^irately describe his goods, either by true pictures or by upt 

The present case falls within the doctrine thus enunciated. 
The decision of the examiner of trudc-marks ref^istration 
is affirmed, 

5. T. Fisher, 

June 0, 1B96. 

;P -J: nnBtmiartt?, oiia o ft8»n Jiwnm 

♦ ino-c nt ham n't alori w ^o nol.tnjnsjsa'xqo'^ srf 


- :?■:'.; nXorf «f snxn 

... ■ r / , <\ ( • ft >-i 

Jon si 0' ■" "-i^ :»■•• 

_ -it to'. , -Ids^i ' 




' "- ubmr r,;t:iai'i ' ■■• 

m-o!)rf-:;f "So ^o noxai; 




■1 ■' M.TI. 
U. S. Putont Office. 

) '.■ .. -■" — "■" - -, 'v::<.^:...: -n . T't'^ev ■"■ooa.:'' ■■•■'•••■ 
■^x parte The Western New York Preserving and T'anufacturing Co. 

— -— 'ISM*'.'' 

Traiao-Mark for Canned Hulled Corn. 

Petit ion. 
Application for registration filed January 16, 1-96. 

Reborded Vol.59 

essrs. '\ J. Stark S: 55ons for applicant. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner of trade- 
marks refusing to register as a trade-mark the word "Hopkins" on a 

hite rectangular background surroxinded by a wide bronze border." 
"^he applicant says: 

• j~> 




"The class of merchandise to which this trade-mark is up- 
ropriated is Canned Qoods, and the particular description of 
goods comprised in such class on w>iich it is used is Canned 
"ulled Corn," 

or steamed hominy, as shown by the fac-sinile . The goods are put'^o 

P in cans and a label bearing .t,h€^,j(|nark pasted on the stime. 

P.egistrat -on was refvisod on the tr^de-mark "Hopkins* Improved 
r-epared Flour, "registered oy Hopkins & Co., April 29, 1373, Mo.l, 
2r)3, used upon "a compound of flour r.ade of v^eat or other grain 
■ ..n'l other jsubstjU^^ices, prepared, so as to be self-raising vr en used 
in cooking," put up in paper bags or packages bearing the trude-maxk 
The word "Hopkins" is the salient part of each mark, and it may be 
:;-:iid to be the^essential feature of the mark." 

The question to be decided is whether "Canned Hulled Corn" 
(or steamed hominy) is included in the class of goods named by the 
registered mark. The examiner holds that under the doctrine of 

.00 it 10 inaiB''i 

Sa.XoV £)9i)too9H 

. cbtod aanoid obxw e \c fc*9i)^wo^^if8 bnuoi^?IoBd iBlwsnBrfont sJlrfw 

-qij 2l 3i-ij5in-9i)iJt J alrfJ rfoiiV oai£)nBr{o-i9in lo aa»Io srfT" 

^0 noUqi-xosob ^iJI0oli't«q dri^ ftnfi {SfaooP bennxJD si i)e.^BXtqoi.'i 
i)9nn60 si jaeaif ni :fi rioir^w no b.-bIo riojue ni l>9ai"iqrf!oo 26' 

iuq QtB aboo^ srfT . 9limi3-0ij1 orio yd n'Aro^{.-^ oi? «Ynimorf benits'9.1?^ to 

.O;iu>o orf.t nr ■^ ^•;Bq 3J[T.i;rr; '. i^-dd isd '^ • 

i)9voiqmI '8ni3{qoH'' 3t*ii5m-dbB'i:^ sri^ no JboBUiD'x aew mo- isiJaij^sH 

,X.OK ,£VdX «*i:-. ij^'iqA t."'" aiXAqo'" • , .,,l. 10 J oi.^;^::.'- ";' ^w.^s^vn'^ 

nietf; -fsrf^o 10 :ti;9 -fijol^ lo bnixoqrno: oqif bORir jSBS 

boGi: na w aniaiii-t-'iXsE od ja-^cijq:'- .jii.'o rniJ 

,:u'ffl-Diii?T;f arict gnl'iB9d aejiSJioBq 10 s^Bd Tgqi^q ni qw .Ucq "^gniilooo ni 

&d YBui ;!i bn» ,3(TBn rfox?D Jo i-^Bq ctnoiXes sr' o si "anx-Sqo. *' • ow oriT 

" .3f^B^- 10 9T;;cfi?3T' Iiiivtn9Rr-0''9.-{i od o.. 

"n-ion boXXwH bonnisO" i9rf.iarfw si b9bio9b od nsx/p srfT 

•d borwn sboop "^o hsbXo grf* ni bebi/Xoni 8i (Mniraori beraee^B 'to) 
nitJoob Qdi i9bnxj Jj^Jrlct nbXorf isniinnxa erfT • .aliem b©"i».-t8jlj- 

j^ t-'Hrte ■! rth Dakota ?'illins Co., fii . 'i:c.,lV";, canned hulled 
oorn and "a conpound of flour mado, of wheat and other r;ood3*' are 
t"- - -nnc. .-;las:4. In that nLse tho v/ords •";;ream of ^Thaat" as a 
trade-mark for "breakfast foods, cracked wheat, wheat (Trits,&c.," 
.vHs rrjfused registration on subsi. -.ntifdly the same mark for^wheat 
flour." It seoms evident that th«so 5 ods are of the sume cla3S« 
•and. ths appellant in said case so considered th<sm, as in his appli- 
cation as originally filed he included "flour" in the claos of 
good.'i on which his mark ^hs used and which were p^^t up in the same 
kind of packajjes. 

In the present case, however, it in thought that the coodK 
are not of the same clans and that the a; pcllant or registrant 
aid not intenn to include in hi:i £J. atement a to the. class of 
,-^r,oni.s Ui)On v/hich rii.. mark v/as used the clans of ,r;.iods namf^d by tho 
other. There in no similarity between the packages containin/;: 
tho • i:'-;. The ordinary i-urchuner would not rnintake one class 
of floods for the other or be led to believe that the ingrcdiontn of 

Ti.. V-,,; -riKi-.runt' s i^.'Odn v/ere used or put up in thts goods of the 
applicant, as was the case in Eno v, Dunn, Oox' s Fanual of Trade- 
Tt'ark iMsen, p, 43ii, 

The decision of the exarciner of trade-narks is reversed, 

S. T. Pi she r. 

Acting Commissioner, 
^une 9, .'. o9 6. 



.)a » 

jjiJiOiu u„ '.a 

t-iBftt .■*. Ir^ ffo.' 


OW 'TS^«f{,«>-ti. 


on*^ ni ©BiJc ".uw ais ,:frcj»oi.i 

« • 

onij-nexa orfiJ "Jo noiBio»I) sjrfT 



U. S. Patent Office. 

Recorded V0'li59,p,2S 

Ex parte Frank 0« Powler. o 

Label for Ammunition. 

ai s . [inn 

Appeal from Examiner of Trade~Marks. 

■ •ri zc> ■ •^•^'r"'^:- ■■-• must 

Application for registration filed January 25, 1896, 

Messrs. Chandlee & Chandlee for applicant-. 

This is an appeal taken from the action of the examiner re- 
fusing to register as a label for aranunition tti^^^.word "Squirrel"anc 
the pictorial representation of a squirrel. The ^pellant states 
that "In usQil^hf^: .label is printed, stamped, or otherwise affixed, 
generally tio.|;h:.e outer face of the top wad of a shell containing a 
•squirrel' load." compujj-ii-on, oes r 

The examiner refused registration on the ground that the act 
of June 18, 1874, excludes trade-marks from the benefits thereof, 
and that a label cannot be registered as sucl^ .i-fv,it- containe trade- 
mark matter, until after such device.^j^-.^registered as a trade-mark. 

The question of the registry of labels was considered at lengl 
by the Supreme Court in the case of Higgins v. Keuffel, 140 U.S., 
428, In that decision it was said that the eighth section of Arti- 
cle I of the Constitution of the United States, which declares thai 

"the Congress shall have power to promote the progress of 
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authoi 
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings 
and discoveries," 

)SS,q,ee.IoV bQbtoooK 

♦noi::f£Ai«rnnA lol IsdeJ 

,83{*iBM-obBiT 1o -JsnxraexS mo^l IseqqA 

«seai ,dS Y'^BX/flBL i>6lJtl aoiiBiiBl^Qi lol nol^BolIqqA 

,;*nBoxXqq6 lo^ ©slftnerfO 3& selbneriO .eiaaeM 

-9*1 lanlffiBxe eriJ lo aciioB 6ri;t t^o^l noilBJ IssqqB na at airlT 

£«fle"X9"iiijjpa" blow 9'-r;t nox:tinjininB -xol lecfBl b 36 HQisl^ei. oi ^aizul 

SieiBis d-nalleqqB sriT .la-nixips b lo noJcitBd-rieas-tqei LBitoioi.q edi 

fbexiltB Qsi.WT.sdio to .beqraBCfs ,f)9;tnJ:tq at ledsl 9rf^ 03U nl" ;tBrI:t 

s gninlBinoo Ileris b to bsw qo;} 9ri;t lo sosl lectiro ericf o;t ^IlBieneg 

".bBoI 'IsTtixjpa' 

:toe Qili istii bnwois 9ri^ jno notistiai-gei bsasjlsi isntmBxs ^riT 

i^oaifiriJ- aittsned edi raonl 33fnBra-ebB'i:t asbnloxg <*-VOX ,§1 enifL lo 

"-sbBi^t enls^tnoo ^i li rioua 8B beiBiat^et ed ;toruxBo XsdBl b iBdi bas 

./' i;.ll4-9bBTd' B 3B b9'I9:t8lg9T BX 9olV3b rfOffe te ^^B LtinU ,T9CfctBfn 3iTBra 

rBanal ;tB b9T9bianoo aBW alsdBl lo Y^^algsT edi lo noicfaei/p arlT 

.•8.U 0^1 ,X9'ilJJ9>! ,v snlgglH lo saBo edi nt StisoD smeiqx/a 9ri* \d 

-litk to noxJo93 rizfrigjta Qdi isdi biSB 3bw it noxaiosb iBdi nl .SS^ 

■4Bdi aetsLoQb rioiriw ,a9:tB;t8 be^xnU eri;t lo nox;tw;tx;r8noO 9d:f lo I eXo 

lo aasTsoTq edi sctoraoiq o;t iswoq 9vBff XXsrie saenanoD 9ri^" 
siodiiSB oi 39rnl.t baJxraxX lol gnxix/oea xd ^aitB Luteals bas gonaloa 
asni^iiw avtioeqadi ttedi oi id' svlai/Xoxe sri;t eiocfnsvaJt bms 

" , aeltsvooaib bns 

"does not have any reference to labels which simply designate or 
describe the articles to which they are attached, and which have 
no value separated from the articles, and no possible influence 
upon science or the useful arts." 

ft was also said: 

"To be entitled to a copyright the article must have by it- 
self some value as a cor^jos ition, at least to the extent of 
serving some purpose other than as a mere advertisement or 
designation of the subject to whic h it is attached." 

From the appellant's statanents in the record it is evi- 
dent that the sole purpose of his label is to designate what the 
packages to which it is attached contain, and that it is valuable 
only when connected to such packages as descriptive of their con- 
tents. The label of itself is not intended to instruct the reader, 
and it has not by itself value as a composition. It does not in 
any sense have any influence upon science or the useful arts. 

AS the appellant's label is not such a label as may be 
registered under the ruling of the decision above noted, the 
question as to Aether it contains trade-mark matter need not be 
considered here. 

The decision of the examiner in refusing to register the 
label, as such, is affirmed. 

S. T, Pieher, 

Acting Commissioner, 
June 23, 189 6, 

M. S.M, 

TO .©;t^^3iaeb \Lqmie rioiriw aledsX oi eonetelsT: \n.B evBri ;ton aeob" 

9VBd rioiriw i>n6 ,bsrioBctiB stb YSrfJ ftoiriw o^ aeloicfnB erf^t sdiiosab 

eonei/Ilnl sldiasoq on fens jasloxc^tB 9r[;J ntotl bo^tBiBqsa sx/Ibv on 

'^ ,&iti3 Isjtezv Qdi 10 sonsl os noqir 

tJbxea orIb asw ij 

•41 Yrf svBri ;t8iJni sIoxcTtb sriJ d^rfait^qoo b o;t bsLitine ©d oT" 

to ^na:fxe 9ri;t oJ ;taB9l iB ,nol:fi. aoqtaoo s as swIbv smoa Ilea 

TO ctnemsaxctTsvbB eism b as nBri.t Tsricfo saoqixrq sraoa gnxxrisa 

^ ,hatioBiiB ei :ti rf oirfir ot :rost<^J^s srii to nol^Bnaiaof) 

-lv9 ai ^t bT009T 9ri:t nl 8^nen©:fs;J3 a'^nBlIeqqs erf;t ifloiT 

9ri^ iBd'v 9tBnsi:39b oi ai Isdsl a iri to eaoq-ix/q sXoa 9riJ isdi iasb 

©IdsJjJBv si ?1 isdi baa ,niB^noo bedoff^ia^i ii rfoirfv o^ a9gB:rfoBq 

-floo *tX9ri;>' 1© sVi itqxToaeft as adgs^oisq rfoua ot bgcfoannoo nerfw ^Ino 

,T9bB9T 9rfcf ;toxrt;t8nx o:t fo9f)n9;tnx ;ton ai tlee^x to ledBl 9rfT ,sinei 

ax ;ton asob :tl ,noxdfX8oqmoo b 8b sx/Ibv tl9a;ti xd toti iBft il bna 

• acfTB Ix/teax; 9rft io songloa noqxr oonsxjitnx yns svBri eanga \ns 

ed YBm aB ladsX a dove, ion ax Xads^jE^ g'*d^nBll9'qqB hdi 8A 

edi , barton svods noiaiosb arfi to gnllxn 9rf* igbnjj baigdaiaoT 

0d ^on b99n T9J;tBm jftBm-ebBt J anxB^noo ft tediedK oi bb nbi:taei/p 

,9ied b9'i9bianoo 

edi *i9:?aiae*t o^ sn.fca.uts'T ni *i9nJ:mBX6 edi to noiaiogb 9riT 

• bomtittB al irfoira as ,X9dBl 

,i8ii»i? .T ,?. 

.lonoiaalnitnoo gnxcfoA 

" ly 14, lii9d, fi^E.T, 

I u. f). Patent Office. 

-. '■:< p.-;rto Ilutthew Qucenan. Recorded Vol.59, 


Tr uio-Linrk for 'fedicinal Lotions, 


pplic'-ition for rof;intration filed April lo, 1690, Mo. 51,278. 

r, A. M.Vooster unci :'r. Arthur \7. liurrison for applicant, 

Thir, is an apponl fi-om the decision of the exsminer of 

tr'tdft-nnrka rof^in ing to r artist er 'th*:: \vDrds "C'dnce and Shrub" as a 

trade-m-irk fo r nedicinal lotions. 

The oxaninciT holds that the words uro either deacriptivo 

or deceptive and that consequently l- ey should not be registered. 

Applicant states that tho uords are used in an entirely fanciful 

ense; that the lotion contains no ext- act of quince and no shrub, 

■ ' thut i -L,. nn tibbrf',viation of the n--u>'ios of the first two nen 

'■o used his lotion. 

jtt It sec 3 to me that the vvords in question are calculated 

to givt) the irapression that the lotion contains, or is nude fror^, 

-iicc tro<i or it3 Truit s-ind other fruits. The position taken 

by the examiner that the 'A-ords are ni.Hleudinc is thorofor;,' sound 

nd hiw 'u.'cision is uftirnod, 

n. 7. Pis'lTer, 

^ y Acting Coramisr.ioner, 

^ Tiay 24, icyG. ^ ^ 

It . 



;3oIil no 

1o 'tBtiimnxi 

aioQjb Qdi f?io*il Xwsqqc ni irf'I 


^enoiiol tenioJ.i) -tn'm-^tr-' 

.bataJaiss't od :fon nlnoxfa ■'ia -'..'• YX:tno«p3Rnoo jp/f 

r^ -,■ /v ■ 

tdwtr; )nc oonJtJ/p lo 


anij»^noo nolo ;?ri.t noi«BOtqn 

:uivi n< 

bnn 'lo'for 



.'lanox^jciXfTjnoD r*" 

^^:>l ,>r VI 

•-V«'J. ♦ 

U. 8. Patent Office. 
— 0-0-0 — 
Ex parte OeorQa w, J3nith & son, 
Trnde-Mark for Cough Drops, 
Petition, Rocordeci Vol.59, , 

— 0-0-0— p.S^a. 

Aprlicftt. ion for regijitrution filed 'ray 14, 189G, 

— o-O-o— 
"r, Oeo, 15, lemon for s^plicnnts, 

— O-O-O"- 

Thls in an appeal from the decision of the examiner of 
tnirte-niHrks rofiising to roif^lstor t'-e -wrk -naiich applicants say con- 
sists of "two oirclofj or rings arranged out of line vri-th each oth- 
• er und connected by a b^r, the circles or rings enclosins full-face 
bu5t portraits of the registrants," — -' / 

The examiner's rofu.-al was based upon the prio' rcgis'^^r- 
d mark to Smith Urothsrs, !To. 20,907, dated Mar-ch 29, 189?., I am 
of ^.he opinion that the propoaod mark so nearly resembles the reg- 
istered mark that it would be liable to deceive the ordinary pur- 

ThQ decision of the examiner is afCiirncd, 

3. T. Pinhor, 

Acting; Gonmir,;; ioner. 
.Ml if J>4, 1896. 

". S,?.!. 


— O-0-0-- 

.aqota riauoo 't o1 : 

,Bin»oiIq<»J 'tot nomeJ 

-/{:fo r[o«» ricTiw aaiXlo a-nwrte ■ sanx-x 'io . ^xt. u. 

£ji* I .seal tG2 do-urn iw 

., -..^ 



oidsxi ed foIiK.,7 M n-^^^ jl-uim bat^ ^Rl 
rf;J lo ttoifcloof) oriT 


aO ^nx;JoA 

.BeaX ,^S \Lii~ 

Sept. 17, 1896, ILH. 

U.S. Patent Office. 

^,ate of- , o '"l". "'"'?■( nle 3:-; '•;n interferiri; 

Ex parte S. Hernsheim Brothers & Co., Limited, 

'"•'"■ -jdlnjr;' ^^ " ' . 

Trade-Mark for Leaf Tobacco, &c. Recorded Vol.60 

— '- Pisher, P.25. 

Appeal from Examiner of Trade-Marks, 

Application for registration filed June 18, 1896, No, 51, 668, 

Messrs, Briesen & Knauth for applicants. 

This is an appeal taken from the refusal of the examiner of 
trade-marks to register the words "Black Tiger, or the symbol 
thereof," as a trade-mark for cigars and tobacco. 

The examiner's refusal was based upon the registered trade- 
^ mark of the Merchants' Tobacco Company, No, 4, 827, dated July 3, 18'"^, 
Applicants practically admit that the previously registered mark is 
substantially the same as their mark; but they claim that as said 
mark was not registered under the law of March 3, 1881, it is void. 

The examiner states that in such cases applicants should, in 
ac ordance with the decision ejc parte American Lead Pencil Company, 
CD,, 1892, 199, reqiiest an interference with the registered mark. 
The office will then notify the registrant that an application for 
registration is pending with which the registered mark would inter- 
fere, if it were registered under the existing act, and that sixty 
days will be allowed for the registrant to make application for a 
new registration. 

The applicants state that they have no objection to this pro- 
ceeding. It is therefore directed that such a notice be sent to 

.be^tlmij , .cO i^. :.• . ,.: v.-iH mi 9 ff a n't 9 11 ,,. -^_:_:_^ xa 

OO.IoV hebiooeH .ODStOooBcfoT ^eaJ tol jIisM-ebBiT 
.as.q — ^- — 

,3JlT;BT^-9bB-iT to tanimjjxa rao^l Ii...-civ.A 

,8a3,IS,oM tdeSX ,81 enuZ bslit noictBt^alsst fol noiisoiLqqA 

.airiBoilqqB Tot ricfwen}! c& nessiia , sis 89'.' 

i^ fr^ V« MB «• HO 

lo laniinexs srf^ T:o IssiJtet erict motl nsjfBcf iBsqqs ns si sirIT 

lodra^ja 9^:J TO ,i9giT ... ,. iS" sbtow 9ri:t lecfai^jei o* aJlix^m-sbBicf 
,oooBdo:f has aiBsx tol :A.tBm~ebB'\i b sb ",109^91^0 
-QbB'ii boTe 0*31391 9 ft J- noqu b93Bd bbw LBss.r '^ '-isnxniiBX9 9riT 
,^'8I ,£ X-C^T* bs^Bb ,VS8,f^,oW ,YnBqraoD ooobcIoT ^zinBdot&M &di I0 iLiEr. 
oi jIiBm b 919 cfax 3.9*1 Y-ta^-^<^-tv9"f'-i ©^^ ;tBri:t -^l'-^^-^- xLlBoiioBtq 8 >« j ;;;.:.■ xXqqA 
biBB SB iB[ii mXBlo Y9 rf* ^•'^o ;3liBm 'xi:9i-{:t au sinsa srfit Y-^^^bx *nB :t a cf.c;.-. 
,bxov 3l ^i,I88f jS rioiBM lo v:s-:L edi igbnxj b9-i9:f3lg9i cton aaw 3[tBfn 
nx ,blLforia eineoxIqqB zs&bo rioxfs nx :tBrf:f a9:tB:fa 190111^x9 9rfT 
,YnsqmoO li on9'T[ bB9j naoxigmA -^^tsq xs noxaioab arid ri.-txw gonBbiO; ob 
,^iBm beie^tfilgei edi Aii.^ aone''isini. hk izeap^i {661 ,8681 ,,'J.D 
TO't nolJBOxIqqB HB ;tBr[;t ctnBiJaxggT: 9ri:f Y^xcfoa nori^t IIxw 90X110 9riT 
-"C9:tnx bIi;ow ?l-xBm b9i9;t8J:j39T srfJ rioxrfw ricfxw snxbn9q ax nox^sT^taxge': 
Xixis SbiH bxiB <cfoB gnxcfsxxs 9r{«-t isbnjx bats :f 3x391 9i9W .11 Ix ^gie'i 
B lot nox;tat)iIqqB e>[Bm o:t ^tneicfal^oi grfi io1 bowoXis ed LLtv ayBf 

,nol;t^Bid'ais9i vre'.\ 
-Gin axri:;t o:t nox;to9(;cIo on gvBri yori^t :fBr':t 9:fBct3 8;tnBoxIqqB sriT 
o? ;Jns3 9d 9ox:fon b rioua i edi bacfoaixb 9iot9i9ri:f- si it ,-gniheer 

the registrant and that the present application be held for sixty- 
days after the date of such notice, unless an interfering applica- 
tion is filed, in which case the usual proceedings will be had. 


Acting Commissioner, 
September 18, 1896, 

W' !L. 

Y^xla lol iJis 

ri „, ,.oi:fBoiIqqB ^nea^ng, s 

2:89 inn ,9oi:Jon 

.isnoxsaxnitnoO iV' 


9G8X t8I tedme.^q 

p, t-» ;'. y 

'ept. 17,1896. 

"'."."m mwmmmmn 

I I'.rj. Patent Office. 


Trude-i'ark for Leaf Tob^ccic-'&e;" • 

i , -^ . "^ . , , Heoprded Vol, 60 

Appeal fron rxanlncr of tffidb-^'^F'.W'-'''' ''i^'.26. 

Application filed June in, l^§'f)V"?rb;51, 667. '^'^ interrering upf.-lic .- 
''sssrs. §M eft On & Knauth for appllcaTit'sr°*®*'*^"'?^ ^^^^ *>« ^«<J. 

This is an appeal taken from the refusal of thp examiner of 
trade-mark^ to, register the words "Black Lion, or the representation 
of H lion," as a trade-mark for cigars and tobacco. 

The examiner's refusal was based upon the registered trade- 
-^larks of the merchants • Tobacco Company, No. 4, 829. d^.ted Jxay 3, 
1B77, and D. Hirsh e. no., No.4.747, dated November 1, 1870, and ro- 
r.^Mstered June 19, 1877. Applicants practically admit that the 
previously registered marks are the same as their mark; but they 
claim that as naid m^orks were not registered imder the law of 
T/arch o, 1881, they are void. 
^ The examiner states that in such casea applicants should, in 

I accordance with the decision ex ^arte American Lead Pencil Company, 
I ^.T)., \892, 199, request an interference with the r-^.:istered marks. 
The ofnVe Will then notify the registrants that an application for 
re^is.....,„ 1, pending with which the registered marks would inter- 
fere, if i,hV were registered under tho existing act, and that .ix- 
w days ,vil. be allowed for the registrants to make application for 
new registra tons. 

tol ^tw.'^-abBTi t ,noxX f* lo 

■•; r.doT •8:tnprfo-^; ■■itii'rr. 
,5 vXiJT, i)o : 

.'^"BX ,ex onwT, bete^pl: • 

; r 

srict iBdJ ilmhti Til ij3 0i 

.;{^ mi»Xo 
.bJtov ,or'cr ,X88X ,S rfoii^h' 

n.t ,bJ ;'.Jfii:»oiXqqj3 f-^ 

,F.i>>"irr. bd'teii' ton.'. 

U.q. a^ ^^*«" "«^' ^^'' 

■i.aJnx Muow R:I-\i?r, bo-' 

The applicants state that they have no objection to this 
proceeding. It is therefore directed that such notices be sent to 
the ref^istrants and that the present application be held for sixty 
days after the date of such notices, unless an interfering applici- 
tion is filed, in which case the usual proceedings will be had. 

S. T, Visher, 

Acting Commissioner, 
September 18, 169 6, 

i mi 

» w 

.f)»ri ad IIlw 8^nlb9eoo-^q i*n3« b^U eeao rioiriw ni ,boIi' 

>i/!S T;Or-»v^iJb eri* ie n^ RM*^b 

.-xenoiaslran^oO gni-^oA 

.aesx .81 



, Sep to '16, 189 6. M. K. 

U. S. Pa.tent Office. ,, —.-«_» — — _j 


Ex parte A. G, Spalding & Brothers.Q^v ,.,. V.ol, 60 , 

' ' p. 7 6, 

ITrade-Mark for Game Apparatujs. ^ , ,. I ■ ... .. i v , 

Appoal from Examiner of Trade-Marks* 
Application for registration filed June 8., 1896, No, 51,618. 
Messrs, Wiles & Greene for applicants, 

.'.t, it Tould have aa jj ood h 
This is an appeal fron the decision of the examiner of 

trade-marks refusing to register the word "League" as a trade-mark 

"ight, See 
for "base-balls, baseball bats, masks, mitts, body shierds, and 

other apparatus commonly used in playing the game of baseball, »♦ 
Registration is refused on the ground that appellants 
have no exclusive right to the v/ord, as any manufacturer who is 
making such goods for a baseball league would have a right to mark 
his goods with the word "League," it is well known that appel- 
lants have been supplying their goods for a number of years to the 

League- National League. They have attempted to s ow that when 

■<« "'- - no*-, ft? r 

they first adopted this word there was only one baseball lea.gae 

■■^^ '■■ wi.;itf. na in rofji 8 1. 1 ^ I ion JL :> not' i o d« 

and the word "League" applied to baseball goods, especially to 

baseballs, indicated that they have been adopted or been sanctioned 

■■ uffi!-mort,. 
by that League, the National League, This may be all true, but it 

does rot give them the exclusive right to the mark. The record 

\ -onor. 

* shov/^ however , that they are not the only ones v/ho supply the 

f. Leagu^ with their goods, as shown by Spalding's Baseball Guide, 
L 1896, ^age 169, where the Reach ball is mentioned. It is clear 
l^ therefore that Reach has an equal right with appellants to mark his 

.seal „iq& 

.soiltO -tns^tB^ .3 .U 


, . ,3Jj:fBiBqqA srrtB?) "lol jlTi^M-ofiu-iT 

.ajIi^M-ebBrcT lo ienxtn.BXs. mo-ix Ij^cqqA 

.8Xc»<Io .01^ ,0€8X <8 sn.ul bsli^ noi;tiJi:f3l39T tot noi:tBolJ.q 

.3CfnB0Xlqq« lol anesntO cS aoXiW , 318 as 

lo nenimsxe edi to a'isloeb srf^ rao-rt Ijssqqs na ax axriT 
3ftBm-9i)Bicr B en "sx/sssJ" -fc^ ow eri :r i9:t8X;;' - • :^ ' axauleT a3it.f'"-^f> . 
btiB ,abl9iria xbod «aJ;tlm ,3Jl8Bm ,3:ted Ilsdsasd .allBd-oaed" i'. 
«.£JBd93Bd lo 9OTBy - ■ snxxBlq nx £)980 ijInomiTfOo BisistBqqB tori: 
scfnellsqqB ctBrfct fcni/ois s^^' "C) beawle-. :,ox:tB-£:f3is9H 

ax oriw lo-xjj^oB^x/nsm ^ns • ■ ,b"cow aricT o* ^fxisii 9vX3)jXox9 on 
-><.r.t o:t :f^!T^i'^ b evr.K fcXxxow Bis-gee L IXBd9SBd b to-i aboori rfona gnijii 
-Igqqs ?Bri:r mon^ XX9W ax n " .9x;3B9J:" btow sri^t ri:txw aboos a 
erfJ ocf 3ii.>9Y 10 i9dm.un b lol sboog, ixgrfJ sn-i-M-tqq^s need 9vBrf acTn. 
nsriw JBriJ wo a ocT bsctqms^c^B svBri YarfT .oxigBsJ XBnox:fBl.1 «9Wsb 
o%o:>i LLr-''< -: :uio \:Xno 3BW 9^erfc^ b^ow 3Xri.t I)9Cfqo£)B cTain ys 
ocf \;XXBXo9q39 ,a&003 XXBd93Bd o:r i>9xXqqB "gxxsBsJ" btow srlJ 

:ri; cTiid ,9mi IXb 9d YBm airlT .9JJ?iB9j XbhoxcTbh 9rlcr .s^gssJ iek^ 
5.^f,.- ^ :-• --r-aiT aviairloxs erv+ moKt avin :to/''. «9 

9rfit Yiqqifa orfw 39X10 Yino ^ri^ cTon 9tB Ysrf^ ^b^* »i9V9woriiJfK3v. 
,ebxiJB XXBa93Ba k' ' Yd nwc;-^" - ,aboo2 lieri^ rr:tW 9xrsB( 

•tsf^ .bsnolJnsm ex L1b6 AobqR edi 9t9rfw ,esX sat'I «oe< 

axrt •'■ ' -ijiw Jii;4-Li .j>>ip9 HB o^^i i^oijo.^ .:^-n- s'OloTej 

Tods fith the word "League" to show that x$x. such goods are adopt- 
'^(i and usod by the League. FurthejTnore, there are other n-'inufac-" 
turers who are supplying their goods to other leagues, if not to 
the league, and these manufacturers have a right to stamp their 
ods ^;7ith this word« 

If a leagiie of baseball clubs - the Loa.^ue, for example - 
should manufacture the goods used by it, it would have as good a 
right as appellants, if not better, to mai'lc such goods with the 
word "Jieague," and it could not be deprived of this right. See 
the fi.ecisions in the cases of Pattborg & Bros., 53 ?'S,Dec. , 49; 
Silveman fc ^,o,, 56 ?'S,Dec. 316; V,'illiams & Co., o7 M3»Dec. 152, 
and Peters Cartridge Co., 58 T!S, Dec« 229, cited by the examiner in 
his answer to the appeal. 

Appellants have referred to several marks v/hich they 
think are on all fours with theirs and v;hich have been registered, 
as going to show that their mark should also be registered, 
Whether such murks v/ere properly registered or not, it is not for 
me to say, BxJt an error corjnitted in registration is not to be 
followed as a precedent; ex parte Smith, 28 ?!S. Dec. 164, 

The decision of the exaiuiner is affirmed, 

r>,T. Fisher, 

Acting Commissioner, 
September 25, 189 6 

<?. ^' 

,i>tow niriv-t rftiw ?.bDo 

e boo?\ aa ©vjeri folwo'v :ri , :a ••ia bosir sboo-Q eiii snuios^tantm bJjfOr'> 
9riJ f(:tiiw abooQ rioua slisffl o;t ,ioJJsd ioa 'li ^BC^nKlXsqqr 

, . ■>o baviiqob sd ion bli/oo jH bnt^ « .©fj^esLl" bio 

,:v-I .oor,.'--^ V ,. ■ smBilll^ ;9IS .osd. . nsrrcevU. 

^nxmBxa Qdi \c uoJio ,ess .ooCt .P.M 8r, , .oO 9p,blivt'ii>n aie.ta^ 

, ■ qx? 9r! ''owan^ 

\Brii r:oxriw Rjftwn lisi&yDe o:f boiisleT avari aiae^Liomk 

■:^!c/i ilB no 

, t . 

T ol Jcn p.i J- , ■' '>: 

9d o.t :fon r.i noilBicfslne-r ^-i b9:JcHiT!raOo loiio ni? -tua .YBa c 

.bem-tlllij *niir,axe orf? lo noX a iosb 9riT 

.-iGnoinaiosnoO nnl:?' - 

June 25, 189 6. 

M. H. 


U. S. Patent Office. 

Ex parte Andrew LinSi^^^' /Recorded Vol. 60 V 
Trade Mark For Ploiar. ^t ri§® > • 

Appeal from Examiner of Trade-MW's. ""■"■'■'-• " 
Application for registration filled March . 2 6, 1896, No. 51, 124. 
Mr. George E, Lemon for applicant. 

; This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner of 

I trade-marks refusing to register t>.e wo ni "Brilhante" as a t 

'* 'icse 3.fsn I ■«« " • i-.-.; fnrni 

H, mark for flour, on the crnunri f->,ai- n- 4- 

h- ■.. ' ^ ground that it too nearly resembles the 

V'*; "■ ' 3 viae ■ 

- wcra BrUllant, previously registered to JenWns * Hoover. No. 
4,518, April 3, 1877. 

Appellant's contention for registration is (1) that there 
is a great difference, hoth In appearance 'and ' sound, between the 
two words; (3, that no objection has been raised by .onMnT* 
Hoover to his use of the word sought to be registered; (3) that the 
word Brilliant is an English word m oo™on use, while the word 
-Brllhante- is not found in the English dictionaries. 

The second ground of appellant. s contention is disposed 
Of by the fact that appellant has produced no evidence to show that 
«e registrants do not object to his use of the word sought to be 
registered. The first and third grounds of contention ™ay be cov- 
ered together. Because one word is found In the English di.tlonary 
»d the other not is no reason for allowing registration of the 
latter «rd. Where two words - as in the Present case - so nearly 
■-ese^ble each other, in sound and appearance, or in eit^ er, as to 

fiH.^ Ml M - 

.s -iff :-!M-9'o nonirriBxa raotl iBsqqA 

,>-*aBoxIqqs "col norasil .3 sg'fosP ." 

lo -f3nxmsx9 sdi lo xioisiosb sricf motl iBeqqu riB ax sirrx 

9ri.t 39ldflI936-r ^tXtBe ^ ^^i^ ^"^^01?^ Sricf tlO ,tWOl- 101 Jl-^: 

,'" .-iBvoo- --' r9i9:f8XSE>i Nrl8Xioxv9tq ^^jjillxta bi 

.VV81 t& IxiqA t^l" 
,.. .^ -... I : \ ,_ ,;,w.,. :,,.,' ..':: -iol noi^tnotnoo a'^nBlIsqqA 

.9sw*ed ,bavOE 3onB-xB9qqB nl rictod ,90n919llib :tB9t3 B 

,, 3^i^, - : ^- -.^^^ . ....:aetdo on .Brfi (S) ;abtow o 

t;^+ .ti^ri.^ ( .:>-i9ct8ls9-^ ^ :triatroa biow adi lo gaxx axri o:r levc 

.-. ^i h-rnw rlKXT'in" rtB ?, i JflB X IXXta bl 

.P.eXTB«ol/oib riailsna 9ri:t. nx bnxrol :ton .x "actnBrili-^ 
fosBoqail^ ■ ■ taoo 3UnnIl9qqi5 lo ^^-o... 9riT 

.^,,^-^ , , on bsowboici sBrf cfnBlIgqqB Ssdi ioBl erli xd 

9d o^ cTriaxioa btow 9rf:t lo 93U axri o:t cTooLdo ion oo .^n.-t.t«inet ^ 
, ) abnxrotg bnlri* bnB ianxl o.iT .bgis^Taxj 

,^Bnox.8i^ ax bnxiol ai b-.ow 9n:- :-:^B09a ,'.erf^9ao:t b: 

o-^i -^r, nox.t.L.'u+3XT^f5i ^nxworiB 101 noaB9"i on ai ;ton ledio edi 
_ ,^. -,. .di nx SB - sj:--^" ow^ :-'-^" ^f-cj;/ -fo * 

_ .'iQ-'ilB nx TO ,9DnB"iB9qqB bnB bntroa ni ti' 

cause confusion, refiistrat ion should be refused. See Warner & Co., 
;3,I)ec., 151, 7/here "Thapsine" was refused on "Capcine;" Shaen 
t al., 30 MS. Dec, 1, where "Arcana" was refused on "Arcadia," 
'^.d th« cases cited by the examiner. 

Another valid reason advanced by the examiner why the 
word should not be re-istered is that "Brilhante" is a Portuguese 
word meanine brilliant , and as xpc^ddoacat appellant uses the mark in 
commerce with Brazil, where the Portuguese lancuage is familiar, 
the ^rao words convey the sa e meaning to some of the people with 
whom appellant has commierce, 

-he decision of t-e examiner of trade-marks is affirned. 

^-. T2 T7isher, 

Acting Ooramissioner, 

September 25, 1896, 


neiJilR "jenioqijO"; no bea4Ao'i 3t>w "smaqi^riT" oieriw ^LCL «,o£iU«<. 

"ti^i;bBO^A" no bee-f/isi a»w "sniso'xA** 9i«rfw ,X , *09a.PM OC ,.Xb i& 

»i&'cxi!niMK.B ^d^Md boi to a^fiHo es<J ban 

eiii ^i^fw loniiTLoxe 8rf;t yd bcanBvba rrosMo*^: Jixlav ntTt^onA 
ea9XJSwcf-to<=I b ex "ectnuriliTH" isaii 8X bete;t8lT>o't od ^on Jbljjorfa fciOT-v 

•■'' , ■; ,"■ C- X ;"; .! , 

n A 

^itfiXimBl bX egBX/^neX saoi/s^Jno'? srf? aierfw ^iisanB ri^iw soTemmoy 

^,so'i9fXTUT[oo 3B rf ^tnfiXXsqqs morfw 
.be- mt iliT: B ai 3>l^i'm-ab£'1v^ "" -anlfflBxr r • '' '^ ' ■ 

.isnoxasiratnoD gnl^oA 

.vf^:>!bA»- 10, 1896. „ „ ^ 

Px lyirtc The Thomson fi T.'iylor Spico oo,\'^y^'^^e'flr"T 

vol.60, 1 

TrrKto-r^rjrk for -^ooris unci Baverunes. P.:U5. 

Pet.J l;ion. J 

AT>pll.^f.ion ^-or r..-lHtrution filed Juno 1, 1896, No. 51,564, 
^o:^rti. offioirt, 7ovfXe i: Linf-hicura for ^spiiic^mts. 

Thi.^ i,^ un appeal from the decision of the examiner of 
....._.,.^3 refu.m.^ to rcgi«tor tho wordK -Kola-riMl to', nr. a trad 
r' r;r '-o- u cortftin powder, 

The exHnin<.ir held that the «ord in qiiesUon i^ descrip- 
•W^ "ur, inriic.itlnc the i>rese=nce of koln ^ind of nalt in the artl- 
^ r^ to vrhioh it U Hppliorl... The up-^licant un^es that the ^ord 
i. not ciescriptivo but 3U;,.e.tivo, ^ui cites vurio.s 
' '"" ^J^''^ ''"''• ''^'"'' '-^^oitly allowed, ^uch hs Kolo-Kaffoin, No. 
',3on, P^p-Kolu, >lo. S8,444, and Koia-Boltzer, No. 26.445. 

^ I nm of tho opinion thut the examiner's Objection i?. 
•■ -^ '-ken Hnd his decision 1. thsrofor^i ^;-'"irred. 

S.T. Fisher, 

A3 .^13' ':nt Co.T^-insionor, 
'...', li^96. 


681 , 



i-'. ^, Patent Office. 

I^nurt^ ^Hrtmlli er prother-r,. Recorded Vol. ^ 

TrHdo-Tfnrk for -ertic^il Cprnpoiind. '''^ ' ^''''''' ^'*^* I 

J?et it ion. 
•-raioHrion for ref^istration fUort Augiist n^:, 1:;9G, No. 52,046. 
_; r. 0. J. Bailey for upi>iiG>ints. 

Thl.': i.s u petition tuJcen from the uct ion of the oxnminer 
of trMrin.-.r-v;; \ -..ins; to r^j^-ifltor the worci '"^a-tal-f^ino^ -^s »' *^ • 
Itn.-ie-mrlc for n r.edic>J. compound. The refusal of '^1^^^"6X^;mlnf=r is 
■ iv-^d upon th.; r,,co.-d in i.ho patent to Vis, No. ol.-^.oPO, for rin 
••thooxyethyl-.iiphu-benzoyaar-ido-quinolin. ' tn thW .^J^nlJ/fy^l^„^ 
■^Uich ...^-^n-p.t;,.u in nho r;runt of th^^patent referred tb,^thr-&bra- 
l^o^inrt vrns culled by the applicant "Kutalpen". 'T'ho oxaniner rp- 


';vi-ed thHt thi;, vord sho-ad bo erased on the sirou nd tmit ^i-f^yras-^ 
. the n^U^.re of u tr^.de-mrk, .^id thin v^^'-done. The oxuniner of 
t^-.;: .- .rk« stHteR thMt i^ iB common in the art to WhidK ^♦Jf^g-com- 
pounrt covered by\he putont menUonod b.longs for chenists, .,,,„ 
-■^y ori^innte a ne^ conpound. to .-ive it :. nnm and he cit.s the 

mioid mnfc, Co. V. -ellonite Mnnfg. no., 41 o.^., ^;o;5. -r,, 
•■■ '-or. .oido thut thep^ttontoe Vis origimttod tho n^e "Kata- 
1" nn.i that ..Vis or hia u.«i;-n.c i. ontitl.d to the oxclu3ive use 
th^ .vord" . , ■; "until 3Hid applicant shall h^^o shown to he 
^ cane into .he ov^nership of th o^n^ne fron vi^ ,' f". Of course 
^^■0 v^rd "-.-t.a.gine'. i« no nimlHr^lM^ the word "Katalgen" =.s to 
-^ confusion in the rand of the ordinary purchasers. 


t -^ %} • 

M» 4* Mk ■» -a ^ •«• 

flOXJi^oiXiiqi' " • 

-moo osif ,c '5.0 imrx 

I>n$jo-'; no feoeij'i: - iXirorfR btor 

-.ffi, aofnno; 

. -; .. ; f»nsX?. ■ ' • ■ 


''"'- /i'^^' i- so far ,1 T or; aware huz not filed an 

^pp.llcui,i.'.n for H trade-mark for the v/ord in question. Th^iro is 

. i. '%,. r-coni ^0 show :;h:it :;uirt p^atentec is now or ever 
■y» yf5£j«ced in the raanufncture or sule of the compound for -^hich 
^^^t^.ln-' the patent nb^-ve -oforrod to. fcroovor, thoro io noth- 
infr in nho record to aho^ that the word in .juoation is v;cll.:.nown 
0.- ^'-rf. it 1 . -r^^-raiy :;pnli;,d to tho p>irtica\ar oompound ricscribcd 
in the; Vis putent, 

tt r>o.:Tis to rr.e thut theso facts r,how that the present 
c.s. dooe not cone ..ithin the doctrine set fbrth in the doci.ion 

ci' . 

The decision of the ex«rainer of trude-murkfi is reverr.t^d. 


A •=•. r, 1 s t an t (^ c) nr. i s 3 to n e r . 
;cemb-ir .'j, lo9G. 



' no eft? cj or 

[-f nJt 


T'.S.P'if.ent Office. 
; . tx P'xrto- -"<D-fitr-J. rnPrinoyer. . . 

^'rHde-*''irk for ^o'bts >;ntf ^ho'eS* J. , , go, 

—---"-"" '" .. 15.454. 

Pcti*t:.n. ''X.^^,^ , 

^p. li.?.i*.loj^ ro- "';r:istrfi':ion fiiod e-ept ember 12, IfasjfJ^HQ.ftg-iO.^. 

r. ■'^Jlifforcl Boer.o for ■':?)plic?int."^''"'''^-*-*' 

This is h petition from the yo t ton' i)'F'til<y'' examiner of trH^t:- 
" ■■^' '- -■''■■ to rc'f^i^t .jr tho comi^ound v/o rti "Arraor-ClMil" ,us ,n-. 

tract e-PiJirk for ienthcsr shoes, 

I 'l5# to 

" '^^••^fi shov;.=5 thut he v/ordo '^^ffon (U-id" h-^ave *3fisr»,n3 6d,j*^^ . 

iippiiod to the n>inufHctiir.? of'rub%^r bot)f5^ rfh «T ' gho eJs ■ mfit h1 jro to 

■^^'" ■■-" " of lonther boots. The nerc.'mndiB^nifi^i the:r>e.. cus^es,:. 

s 30 n^-->rly like that which ^4p pile Hn't-\nV/«lrsp>'>yty.«s;f^ ion Cor t hut 

less Kor"..; ,3i;.b )t'.nt.i.,;l axffcrence In' the trade-raarJcs LhJBas<il vos. 

' '■"; o- "it r: <} • .- ,.,, ■! ., 

listsj re.:ristrqt Ion must be^re.tSi'sed. ■ \jpdii''"rrOTj:u-d^^^ I Aim 

n - ! -'.d to beiievG ^th:-t tho idoft oonvoy^;^ fcO'^th &' rai/id;-»f H^e , 
Innry per.son by the word v^ich uprlioaftf- is' Seeking to h-tv-i r. :- 

torGd ■ ■''tnti;i?_Ty thnt nonveyod by- 1^¥ v/ord»< i2s*^d ,i«--t|v; 

"-^ ^ ^^^^"c/' '. h_ , . .. ■ ■• ■■ 

ferencrjs, hindthut if y-^.r.irJ.rH\l''nn' •</r^A-<4 HrTPminrh<l to the word, 

•mor-niHd", confusion v;o>jld bn liable ^b rssivlt-v 

*; The decision of the" ex^ininor of t^i^de-n'^ks i.^iffimr-d. 


., , Asslst'iHt"n'oirift!iffa.i.on'jr, 

lis II v»^r O.. 1 , ■~; -7 



>i'\i<q :; 




"itisiP-nofn'xA" in ov: ijauotimoo ari 


ao 8»c 


C'jv ki!?.rmr',: sr^'ii-m-siJBio t*r{ 

?■. f & Icxu 



^n ("hwXn-'toi 



^ ^i££ie Ark oil ^, si-iith. 

. Recorded Vol. 60, 

Arwder-Marki for ?jtnuy». -, ^nffi^?^^. 

Petit ion. 

0^ .he ..,..,..,. .,,,,,,,, ,,,^^^„ .^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^___^_ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
the ».,-,^,.,a,. .0 ,.*,,, ,„, ,„„^_^^ ^^ ^^ ^_^_ ^^_^_^^^^^_^ ^^ ^_^^J_ 

shows th Hf" t hciort <.,«v,i< 

^i^.ic.uro rec^.tiio.les only. T^iey 

-^0 u.^. Of .neso words upon sucks .-.s 

ch in order ^o in- icate *-h- origin n^> 

^- or igm Of suoh sacks. They huv« no 

--y - .. .0 a purohnser in.o the .elier .... .ho .our 

coni-,..ln.d tn the .sack nurked is ^El.otrir li^sf. n. 

3(. j-xc Lignt" flour. Tho oi--.'!,-- 

i« not WH^-runted in lending It. aid or . .notion to t >, 

o action to the ro/ristration 
of Kfiyihina -.rhioh rauy be nrouurtw» «f. ^ 

. MX.uctive of deception or nay pos.iblv ,.,. 

1^,.^ ^''' "'^'^ "'^■"^ ^^^ -^^^--^-y thoir to 

'' 2 'i-'icks or receptfic' ^^s in <;iir,>, -. 

i^-.s .m soch anamior =,3 to Hvoid thi. objec 

^- oT.ico j...t such v/us their intention, 

t wer^^ furthermore to nhow th«»nfri« ■ ^- 

'^v. ch9 office r,h'.t th^y had complied 

,^1 'orcXr,n cortn.rca or commerce v/ith 

' ^ •>- '-~. r^vorUble con side ra^. ion nir;ht 

,0c'^ .10" 





'. io if. r. 

-fi !J' 

.-'■ O 


o eBU «4 



•Jo evi^+cvw 

i\nBn I? riot' 


-,n?»v {i' 

■e cAven them. Under the circumstances, however, I think th.t the 
otion of the exuminor whb correct., 

The d.cifiion of the examiner of trade-aarks is affirmed. 


Assistant Oommi soi. -^ner. 
January 28, 1897, 




• ept. le, 1B96. 
■" . IS, 004. 

n r?. Pfitont Office. 


p. 69. 

A}^po-il from Exuminor of T^aftp— ''tI"^ 

Ai^;.J.,i.';.. xon Of i^ Kr.'irrjnc filed v^-ybnia^v ft, 1^96 Mn ftn hpo 

■ e s s r s . ■•: . A . Sn o'?? & ")o . f o r Kranr: e , 

ifiiB 1,-; sm ar^ 

by Knirarae from the decision of the exwiriP" 

-r trade-murkR refusion tho motion to disaoive the int ^--f r v-.^pp on 

in hip. "■ " , 

■ V -round that no interference in f ^ipt exists botwean thft trade- 
m'-rks of the rospecti'-e parties. 

Thj f^ic- :^ir.ll Q of ipP'^-U mfr. mrk shows --x jjcroll. '^irni words 
nl Ir.r.ters ^^rrnn,^!;od ms sho'^n in tht^ cut; 

::ho Hppellnnt stHtofi thnt tho esserjtial foaiures of this rturk 
.is "tho expression '^^-.i .-. Q.ick,' ..nd ^ho ioi-.^rc, - .ri o ar- n - 
'ed -.spectivoly nt^oppo.ito ..idea o- nnd in -ili^nment v/ith the 
^letter '•.- ^Y.., proninnnt f. o^' thi. nurk, ho^^ever, i. tho 
-o.d« "Uo.a Q,ack« ..n. these -^rA^ must be taken .3 th. essential 
foHt.ros. (n.e -etropolitHn W.tch Oo., 41 Ms. Doc, 4o,.) 

-no ^!»/:^oH.nt v^-.r ;;ut i.. int erforonoe with the murk "Quick- 

.bo -r ^- 


noiiom on>' 


oli-^i.o-iHll ^-^ 



■ Mr, 


■ ,1," pr.:vxo'-.:ily •'•.-,:i r>i. '■ rod to Loo>r^ood. It seen." "J.c r to no 
that tho proningnt, fonti;. > " the uppe-ll'-int' r; ^-^-irk f-.o no-xrXy re- 
.■;'Vol'3S tho r.'irV. of tho rogiRtmnt a;; to cause confi>. R.lon, 'jrifl 
ther'^foro the inter.forenco wus properly rioclurod, (fjeo Kxroy v. 
■>* ■ •■•..?;h.l.ln -'c r^o. , v. Johnston, r^? !'^.T)oc. .'661; Lo-"n v. Ohio Ooffee 
no., 7:5 n.n., -lloG; ox pirte Rlnnton Killing Co., ^i7 ?!n,Doc. ,372; 
• nfi ox P'^rto II. Y. Po^yrtor no., '^v' '"^.Dec, 14^.) 

While the nbovo /^rcn<l for disnol tion was the only one rnised 
in ^he r^r^tion, ■ '^^'-^l nt now oontendr; t'Hit the interference wao 
improperly docl?ire(i, bocnuso the aute set- up in his declnrHtion, 
" ly 1, lfi9;;, does not ov«3rcone the d>it e of Octobor 1, 1089, in t"-: 
dfiolnration of tho rofjistrnnt , ;md until he overcomes this duto of 

-•■ '■''iC^iritrun'^, tho intorforenco shoula not have >?oen declared. 
The prirau f^cie dito. of tho rijfrist rant, us is well 'Nsottlod, is t'-i, 

r> c '" his apoltcntion, Tlovonbcr .-, 1B9;2, and ur, thi« is BubS'j- 

\. "■■ 
jnt to the date, July 1, 1892, ;>et up by the -^pell'lnt's docl r;;- 


'.•ion, tho intorforonct; v'-is t)roi:orly docl-'irod. 

The decision of tho oxuminor is uffirmod. \ 

S. 7. TMfihor, 

Aotinr, nonniR-ione". v 


<jp'.'£:oor 20f 1896. 

.V vo 


)np"'.£»?.ie.+ nJl erf.'* 010 

. oO rV'J. 

li'Xfi 0>tTtHq Xj> joc.J.J. ,.r,0 6V 

, c. i. i -^ en o 'zLno art v+ «jt? w 


0"?; hn. -jVOdK ©ri;'^-' 



1 o 0^ -n aX''^ f5er!ori'';^V' 

rt,t lo fiox;f»ni 

■io:. '? rni'^.q 

,9. tub eric^ o"^ ^n 


1 p, i oe . 

r / 

tf. ^;ro. If i, 01 6. 

■xyr^^r^j IG, 1897. 3.F. T. 

U. r>. ^Pii ten t Office. 

\P.ecordfid ">. 
The John 0. Roth Pm eking Co. v. AjXOStini.X Vol. GO ,\ 

Trade -f^.-irk for Lbrd. \ ^ 

— — — — -• ^ \ 

A*^i>u^il Tror. the 'Examiner of InterffifonceSi ■ ■ 

iJlicallon for registration of The John C. Roth Pncking Oo. fil^d 

Jiily 17, 1B93, No. 44,844. .;;..-, .-.1 "ar;.-!.:;. a..-, 

• iifip-T'ark nf Tosoph ''p;or,tini ^^Oj^istered October 33,1883, >To.lO,6.'', 

■. 1-30. J. »'iirray for The John 1. Roth Picking Co. 
I r.'essrs. Munn ^ Co, for Agostini, 

This is an jp poul frora tho decision of the oxHrniner of intor- 

f'jrences ndj'-dicating pri irity in f;.vor of AgostLni, who rogistercd 

trnde-mark October 23, lft83, for tho reprosont^ition of i aove -.p- 

lied to roceptHclos containing lurd. Tho decision of the cxumin- 

■ of interferences is ':o the effect thut while The Jogn C. Roth 

• icking Co. proved thut it h?id used the representation of a dove 

I'upon p .ckagos containing beef and hums, it hud not proved that it 

'ir>'3d T iid nwirk upon packages containing lard. Huschart testi- 

los, seo page 3 of the record of The John C. Roth Packing Co., "x 

' X the company x x beginning early in Ifi?;^ adopted the Dove Brand as 

^\a t-ride-raark for all their stsindard good.-, mcl-iding lard." Thir. 
<^Gm.i>ii.nY has offer'^d in evidence labols wherein the same trade-na-k 


■'for -ise upon packages containing hams and boof is shown and has 

f proved the use of such labels since 1G71, Agostini h ;s not co^;- 
tested th-5 interference in any way, -vhich fact raises ■ ''..•npl.-.lon 
^that he has abandoned his trade-nark. It is '.ru^. that the showing 

.caoitotf.'J-ty vtnl Ic 

^. ll: , 


,1 niol?i«nlIq^i 

■ 2t.L;. 


1'' .81S. 



ml sniniM,^ 



r.lriT *> ,h-iMl sni 

«ri \: 

,niwori« or- 



of The John 0, Roth Packing Co. is not n very good one, but it Is 
..■.,;0'"ior to th-'it of Arostini. 

The decision of the examinar of Interferences is reversed and 
priority Hdj".dio'ted in fHVor of The John 0, Roth Packing Co. , 

n. T. Pishor, 

Assistant Coranissioner, 
ebmary 17, 1897, 

, .oO sniafoi**^ ri.-foh 

,Vt-.'Hj. ,VX vtmnde'^ 



■mi X.' 

^ .'*t»<Q X2. 


nw x^ ^-'-vJ i^-iiif eriJ lo ani^sir- 

I'lo iMoX 

ill -? 

^'d &0OiWQicinjfJ onJt 

Alum 9 i3Bt i » f 


•. P^.tent officG. 


r;x purte f'crroll-fioule '^onpuny, 

Trydfj-?' rk Tor r!ondoxia'.:u ..iiicu <iu v , 
Pot. i*- ion. 

-fjordod Vdl\. 01, 

cution fiXeri April 2'J, lft9>3, ^' . . ,, :. 
R. T^ey ft Purfton3 »iml Mr. J. K.Mottinghtim for ttpi-licant. 
rhe .i{)i>ell«iit represents thut it has HdoiAed >i tr .ae-raark ■> ■- 
Ing of the nrbitriiry words "N'-sc "nglam," v/Vi.lch it ap^iies ' > 
ra^sat prackod as shelf goods, ^;nd thsit th e p;.rticulur descri, - 
nf rood:; upon which it la wa-sd i" condonaed r.ince meat, 
RQF;istrat ion wus refused by the of trude-nurks under 
r.,-^ -ino ;..r, rioTmcnri by t.hc 'lonrnlr.?, ioncr in the case of V/illi <im 
dt 3:.klng no.,iJ6 MS.Dec, l»y, in which the wordfi "TTy-A- Engl-rxi 
^)",-;ri .$ J. t,r-=<^o ■^'.-'Crk ^or orackors, biaonits nnd w^xfers, u'iti 
th« authority o i" the decision in flolumbia !!ill Co, v, Alcorn, 

It aiij-jQarw that this b^-nnd of condensed mine 5 raoat hus been on 

I'.irket for u nUT.bor o f y^iurs -nd har. '- <1 v. r-ut -.ile; tj-.ut 
.n th<5 paat two ye>irs tho "erroll-noulo "JompMny purchfised of 
)oUi . ^. ■..•y, t.h '1 •^- I'rn,;- oVfH. , ' ' ' . V < d Will und tr-^de R'.imo nnd 
I >jew Fnp.lfind minco ra(iat, paying tht;''o:'or f i f cy tho'i.'.^nd dol- 

ir- 1 ; till, ,.(1 in t.ho ofiurtn of l.lii- 

..<"*■ ..y ■. . >«''! 

ut ''hic5in:o, urainfit one T.K, Rico for an fille?;on in'^rin.GO'nent 

• . ;-wnrk ""'■" ^r-. -} 'od '^r^r.'^ ■' '\, :-..•:-. '•'■tt," ..■. Ih o court 

ted a prolirinury injvm.^tion, r<natrttlninf; d.;f'mdant fron ^isi-og 

the j^'irne; v- ,^. u n^ ..,-.-.,., 

'o vnc^ite the 

injunction njj.wus hud nn d the court donled th« r M;,, ,„ 

::ate. rt 1,-? ^'jrA-.p • .-oftl i-k, ^ 

■-'\-^,.J'!^''- inar erred In not 

^elcht; tcthelone-centinufxi ..nrt oxtensive us*; o 

. , ., '''"'■" -^f. f-<^ "Tf-v^i. 

• ^ "'■ ^"^;^ ^^'^ ^^ ■'' -•^" Of tho -irc^it nourt in 
r^vor of -"o .51 St rat ion. 

T TH i«pr.«s«cl wi.h .his ur.^,.nont -utd ..r. the .question the 
s«c .er^.» .e t>.t ..o«o boA, ^o tho ci.cuU cou... x ,,ouI<i of 
cour.e ^-..cni., th .t aecision .r. cont^oliln^ In this ^t 

^ c...« in .ho no,.rt3 ^ononaiy ,0 off on ,..3,.ons of 
r^... -~ ...i..ra competition o. .ncr-OHch.ont upon I«^iti„.t,: trnde 
in this o^fico it 1. necea.ury to c.^.y o.t t>:. p.ovx.xon of 

• i;^a 0^ the stntuten At Lnr^e, r.rch ., I3ai, .nd one of the 
-Vision. 0. ^h.t .ct. in .action ., .. ,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,^ ^,^^^^ 

'''^^" ^PPlyinfT ^or rociatr^ttion nust have :.t the Vlme a 

^^^ ..01. ht to rofjisterod, but fj..-;© 
-o other. ,0 .on, arm. or corporation hus the ri^ht ,0 
0, either in tho identic il Tonn or in ■ nv -u.y. . 
;;3 nl./Tht be CMlc>auteci to docelve. 

np 01 .he ?oiJunbiu oaco, I ,m obllj-eri to ^r.u^ 
. or.on livinr in 't.v .,...,, .,^, ,^^^^,^^„ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^ 

" condennod .inc«, would h.vo th. .i.,t to Cu 

::.;,.. • Ince .-.out", ^nth .; cii.^positi<;n 

•'^oi.x,..U court or TUinols in i ta full- 

t© **l;ply ,4;,y -• 

ion ni u:. 

rii .tiuo; 

uriJ no t.^Riii'p 

^t?ri ?.i«w «c.'. 
...frr I>'.p ■. c . i)*jHJL? .to ' 

.'i.'v ,9a«o • ■ nx iiniJ-J 

■qij 3n; 

lo anb ''>ni'' tli^ 

t^i^i i. 

t*i •f?»'' '- 

UiLoV yr 

r1.-» oV i>rf bXi'Ov.' , J .-c ." -^ ? ^1 * 


•) no in lot* >) v«; 


'°''<^ G'l^ilties in this CHHO I 

— .0 h„X. ..,. ^a„ *,,,,,.„, ,,.^ ,,,_,_^J^ 

3, mwer the racnnins the the ■■■• ,1 ^f. ,„, 
on trnde-nurks has no' • -^ ,n->,, ,„ ,^. , ,^ 

LXM. eroa ppii..^ to hU monufc^ctu^cd. 

Th>"- doclRtor oP '1- 

■■■-.x„er Of tr.d.-nark. i. the^'ofo.. .f- 

'lurch. IT;, ir,97. 

<J"o' n 3. Soyaour, 

Co ami s 5 io ner. 


3ni.n»c-r'. erf-' 'isaijcii: »^t;uA 

U- ■''. Pa^Gnt Office. ' ' 

Tr^.<!«.H«rk for Lsper Bear. ''•^*- 


J on lb r /'Vigiat ration f 


filed July 51, 1893, No. 45,15^. 

-,. . -.. cunt , 

-.-.^.. .--».n.,.....„r,u„„ .„ ,,,,,,,,^,^, ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ 

n,. wi .Kin it the- mono.^Aan :*B;.jr;.^i:w print^n 

'In White ,y>p« tt bitick bucitr^r-ound --i th ->, 

I ^..^•ouncl, .,ith .ha roproRontcitlor of hop 

>ne r ^ure,, ana t he wo rds "A^ed , 

»J"e, "und Popular, •• urintpn i « k 

Prl.rteo .r, heavy capital lott .^^,.^. iil„,, ..^ ,. 

-in th-s application, 

The ra»4rk cit*/* in >- .i^-^. 

^^-.',-^n .J.c.aon .,hoH-s u trl.ncul.r ficurc. 

^ "' ^'"'"^^^ '^^ ««^-^^«i ^y the registrant, .^1. .h- 

► Pllcant ,,« essential tv, ., . ^ .„ , 

- ' "^ colored trl«n,Tle. it also 

-ilms as e«fientiul the -b f » nn.^ t >, 

»..^. and the r.^pror, en tuition of 

I^ l-^- cli) inert . • 1 r- , 

■ ^'-^-i-ln the Office to .Is.ect tV- 

- -- -.loot xt px.comoa. The r.fu.^i of ^ , 
wn en u jji-ior ••.■.:'i-» ^. -- j 
,.,,,„ . ^ ■■■"^ '^ ""^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^>-^ton, .0. 1C.H51. 

18 »ince the year lf>55. 

;J. 1 







nolit^'^iKl -^ noiiii 


10 noialoe' ^«*^'^ "^■ 

lo flOJ 


"iX^illJrtf" nJt «^'' 

'/ona not- osr 

LU:Uv ^AmiiJJr. :t on «i -olo 

IT * i 


• diici r 

.aaax ipt 

T - "hie T -n in -ic co rri -vith the oxuminer, a.nd vrhiXv. '■' 


featuroB that on close inspection or to the e^^ert eye woHld tend 
to diff <i' 'jN. ifit y this r-iark f}X}n that xx^ed upon Bass «ile, still to 
the ordinary i)urf)h>isor the red triangle sot:ight to be registered 
v/o'«5ld, in Fxy J\idf;onont, oe roguratsd either liS identical in form 
with the'woll, known Bass ale tirado-marlc, or in r.ucih noai' resera- 
bl'inc^ thoroto us isonla bo c^culnted to deceive, 

llfndcr set^tion 2, th'-^rofore, of the act of March 2, IBOl, the 
rf;,!:»i strut ion oupht to bo rfjAised, yn-'i ' ftecision o f th o oxnminer 
of tr'.do-m-'irks to that effect is uf finned, 

John r>, «ieynour, 

nor^ila.jioner, 12, 1897. 

o>* ^iX^« ,9Xi>, aaa,^ n„^,, ^ 


' 00 on n i 


■ !.Mli 


Mm^ht :■' 


.■31 .t-ir,'>'V.. • 

*^0«l ,.;•£ K-^- 



; ch 25, 1897, 

U. S. Patent Office. 

^ P'^^-^- g ■f^oljx 'F^ydotix, 

f? •!•• T" 

r.ecorfiod Vol. 61, 
p. 213. 

Tr Hde-Ma rk fo r So »ip , 


Applicntion for re.^iptrution filed T'arch 18, 1696, Ho.5'J,457, 

?.!r. Fenry Connott fo r ypi-ilicfint, 



Thir. is a petition tuken from the decision of the ox-dmiri' 

]' V.'' of tr Yle-rifirkR rofus In,™ to r-igister the rcprfison tation of an 

"erect hiOT'in fi/^iirs nnrt the -vords La Vi err; c" as fi trfide-mark for 

jso^.p, ^ub.Ttant the s^.rno ni^k v.r.'ia rr;;fiisod by th - then fSonniis- 

Kionor in ox p-.rto "^yrlonx, ol T'S.Dec. ,500. 

T see no rear^on for ndop^.in^ a different view of the caKO 

Kl '^^h*!^ decision of the exar':inor of trade-marks is therefore af- 

fi me d , 

. r. Fiiv':er, 

Acting Oorrinissioner, 
["arch :3'r, 1^97, 

1^! ' r I ' 


.TGt'ii ,Cj<i r; 

.ooi'^ltO in 

.xwob\i;r=f xlXef^ g>-t-^i<q xJf 

• qnoP •? cD: :!tTt'^1-»f)i^-tT 


.Vf'J.^r.a ,oH ,9681 ,aX rf?T...«».T balll noJ n^ un . f. 

,.-t n.-n tlrrfi- nn-^'^ v- 



t' 1 

f Tn^T. ^h:', 17,590. 

U. n. Patent Office. 

S.K. I. 

KirshbHura v, BonJ^mixn, Recorded Vol.()8. 

Trnde-HHrk for.JBij?jclo.<3, 

App Gul on. ?fp t ion , 

ApolicHtion for registration of Fhnnie Klrshbaiom filed November 21, 
Trrtde-f^urfc ref^ls terert to Eriward _n. _Berriman October 2,' 1895, 

Ifossrs. -»KQar?i ft Co. for KirshbuuinV";- - 

Messrs. Oluacock ^ Co. for Berriman. min^r 

This is fin appeal by Berrir^an fnam tho decision of the 
exaniner of tr '..iu-!nH.)i£s refusing to dispolve the- above entitled 

interference. Ber- ir.^n holds that the interference rns i^rp.-ul-trlv 

■■ iii ■ 

d-"V -od .1: ch^^ua^^the'^'o-^m^e did.nO:t caJ^- upon r..|>on Klrghbuuio. to, 

n-xke outh that herinnrk wns ufied in fO'red:?:n' 'c<-'anerc«Vprier -to'^'the "'' 

udoption unci, use of the .-nurk of Berrlm'xn, or ut linst prio- to 

- ■'■ :i-:' ': Mb;-: '■•• ■ .. ■ 

B^.rrinan»s date of jaXT! filing, 

ir.^T,^?s^^r"^ ,''^° adopt an>^ use h trtt de-ranrir. ip the owner of 
ouchmav^,, .,3 i. H,iifi in t >,o docln Lons cited 'l!i. 'Y^e ''eiailnK'' I't'is 
t'^jr^.fore irnniHteri<a;v- ether or not Kirshbaura used her "riHrk in for- 

■ h 4>.v o.-»;. iOfl i 

eign comerce before ^e filing dut e of Berrlniun* s" ai^aicit ioh for 
ru^^strat ion. 

tin do- af ^', n 

The decision of the exswiiner.-of tr*iCU)n9jafks is nf firmed. 

S. T. Fisher, 

Acting CoraraiR.-ioner, 
T.'urch 2 6, 189" 



ad.tov bHhnooeH .nwnii-c^fi .-^ nu/xK!riR-xl"M 

,BC, XoVCia TO' 

,«t -.,- 

,nol?oM no IwoqqA 
'.ed^ieroV? bain i«rBdriE'U)? . inn^-TrTF^x :»«-.. .^ ^o^ "aCBr'" " 

., aJ:.-;7 

10 noi sxoou <nj 

9vIo.-f.i.: .11.8 5^31 s.'hhr'- at:. tanltnijr- 

■riBdr{?,ti"S noqo fioqi/ 

., ,ni.iw>: 

axr naadrfSTl^ ion no ^-3 ri; ^tH-^-^i ^^'^ol 

,noi K^Bi^ 

jDemnii* nt fi3h£m-fti)i*i^ "io -.BiU.tu.^xo 

,-\3ni'X?.r. immori ^"^-^^''-'^ 


Arril 6, 1H97. 


U. 5, Patent Of. 'ice. 

'^ V 'I' 

F^ parte Au,:^!;^ t ua \;^o 1 f , 
Trade-M»irk for Bolting ruohines. 

Recorded Vol, 61, 
p. 284, 

Pot it ion, 

ppliontLOn for registration HuT-Doc ember 4, Ibf 
essrs. Hov/son an. -ov7son fo r'uJIaTcant , 

Tvi« i« „ , ciecinion of the 

T.I.. 1« H.n appeal from the^oxHminor of refus- 

^n. to register the <«o ret «.y.ator« hs a trado-narl. for bolting 
mk^hine.s or s ieves, 

Tha exarainor holds th-it — 

two known «rds, ,U['; Z.TiZ ^ ™u.h ! T""' '" ■'™"""'> 
re«<iHy ai,i,,,ront und cle.o4 tlv? of , h» f ^ ™"" ""■ ^^ 
appliort, It, should not b° rllilt °L ° °^' '" *^'^'' i* ^^ 

Purently .ioso.lpti.e, »M* h.vo ,„en r.:«Uto o*. .. .ont.„„,~, 

that r. Ince the v/ord "aynitor" i- m- fr^-,.- • 

^x_or i., no. m n.ny dictionary , he 

has coined a ne.-/ woixi v/hich h- sho-lri ho m 

'^ n. onouid be uliowed to recister. 

It 3eon« to no t.^ >-v, ^ ., i, ^^,,,,,^ ,^ do.cintive 
una the decision of the examiner of trade-.arlcs is af finned, 

?^.T. Fisher, 
Actinf; aonr:ifi,^ioner, 

now AKsist-'int Oommisr^ioner. 
April Ir., ir,97. 




;^o-f*^^-P ?n 


9ri.t 1. 

:f:-'tPt^T;t lo Tonlmi-xoif. 

,asv»l?, 10 Si^nirinw 

— -^^irS.J Cillon 

o^ 'no* x-L 


i^tslb ^i^.»^■ 

•r-ortn erf f(i>irfv<- fnow v.eft B'fcen' 



t T 9 ail 

.y^ai , .1 


Intf. No. 17,S17. 

'*trch 31, 1K97, 

U. •:'. Patent Of "Ice, 

-Tnt ton v7 Stent 2. Vol, 61, p. 282. 

..Tude-rruric for ?!efi.tcine. 

A:.-! ten .i-(^n of Wixii.s A. Hut. ton for refi-istrution filed AprU 30. 
lo9 6, >%-). 51, b .9. * 

"r. ^j^rl !). Stephen forrutton. 

^. -:. lP:■o^:l by ponton from the decision of ..t,he 
oxurtinor of in terfe fencer, ndj,<rii.htine in favov- of ntentz priority 
f .'Klcption --ind ri-ht "n the trafie-mark Ven-e-ton-. 

/^^.^^ J^Tr'^-.^^ "'^"'^ ^'' cier^isnute m medlcHl comnound used 

' "■' OS not 

ntly MS n cuthurtic .;,n.i -ur- for rhovruutisra and onch of the 
»rties clulP)s the sol., right to uso the trnde-mrk, 

?ho^yi<: - . - '^^fi^7,r^Ti.«^ed by tho -^x^mincr 

' ^^i"^^^'?"^^^ :^'=« ^^ii^ h-^ "otod rm^ny onis.ions nnrt mqh inmte- 

the point o 

tnl ma',' or in ■- .. .;.or:y of bot^i parties, he Hrriv^.d at the 
conclusion thut^ imtton had no^: shown u cu3o sufficient to 

^d in r.ot ?v^v^^;ch Hn interest in tho Veg-s-tono oo^^unny -.:; to 

'■'lv^> him >i ri/;ht to uso the rKirk 
■>rity in ir-rc r ■ '' •■. 

The uppellunt contends that the t,-ado-nark v^ ., n ,-^^ 
■'.a comorcially when -utton nnd St .ntz jointly onc:;<5ed in the 
U of thii, nei^icino, J.,nu^ry la, lo95; thftt it war; u../ ir v ^ 

.V.L«,VX .oK .1^^ 
.Teal ,1^: -'-- 

• a-- 

.S8S .q ti3 *^^^ .sinoi?. .v no;tii;5I 


nx 'xo ;'-' >.in -; 

-iiiamii dt>sm hn^ Rnol-.aino xnem be. ton sri sXxr 


businesr. li-'itil they Peiiuruteix 'obruary J?9, ltj96; ^md thut Hxitton 

riirnishod the noney for the business. He says: 

"If Hutton was the sole proprietor, us he sty?; "~e v/h!5, then th; 
rif^l'nt beO'OTie vef-t.^d i'i him und is in him now. If }i tton nnd 
Rtentz wnr^; joint proprietors then the right remuinQd in both 
of than "When they sepur^ited imleos one ulono succeeded to the, " 

Af5 pointea out by the f^xaniner of interferences, the 
evidence is not n.iti.-fHctory. If, ns i'utton contends, he nlone con- 
stituted the cornp^iny which (iid busines;^ under the name "Vog-e-tono 
Comp^iny", the rip;ht to the murk v/an his -md in the uiJsonce of risiy 
showing that he han since parted with it, i.: stiii his. If, us 
Stentz contends, there wns u pnrtnership of some sort, the mnrk 
belonf3od to the cornpuny and at the dissolution of the partnership 
mny hnve been acquired by one one, but, if so, by fjhori does not 

In fnct the office is not rrsiteri' better yble to judi^e 
the rli^hts of the parties than if no testimony hud ueen tnken, inu«- 
niuch as the testimon y in the case is not directed to the point to 
be docinod. 

Under the ci rcuns tiinces there is no course left but to 
udjudicute priori' y in fnvor of the senior applicant for registry. 

The decision of the exurcino- of interf ertinces adjudicat- 
in?^ yirlority in favor -.if ntr-ntz is nf flrm'jd, 
* S. T. Fisher, 

AprU 15, 1B97, 

Acting Oomnissioner, 

nov/ Assistant Conni.. nioner. 

iiiii-" no^."tH "It:! .woo ru 3Ci ;»r{:^i-^ 

riJoc) n± •■- ■ ' net ;tri»;ii'i ;n' .; uvno Biuiv j. -'io ni -'ti^i;!, .- vr s.tnp.-fp 
9ri>' ocf oj.'r, nnoXs Ofio r.GsXni' h3>+,'-"^,j'^^i-.:-, •'.-orf+ n - r'v.' jt© n^ lo 

■ .r.p.onisad 

-noo 8noI« &ti (RfmoJnoo no.* iir" ,il ,vto.1oi?T:".iJHS •'ton ?.t nonphi 

L uu^' -o -jjo y '■ 9 f-ih' on iej noi .t.'' lO.Jii j x j a 

.".x;: ixxj;- ;. X »jx ruxw r.^.-jnttq aoni r. r.itrf an Jiif{J anivk-oria 

qxrls'x&n.'ftwq orf.f,'J:o floivtiiXonai]:! Crti ift bru: \,ru)<.itr,oo .■»".■' o.? iiosaoXsu 
Jon. Rpflh tnottf ^d;-^J!-^l ,*fr<J >©fl« srto vd ^9^irfpnll {hiti 

sf.birf; oJ 9ibt< 10.^ 1«d v-XXtf-X'xa.'f -r .'^on rtf eolTlio arfct ^r<.'J. nl 
-« ru jAf' eci ;imn' vnowilJaikCt on 'IX nnn:i 8&I*t*q erfv^ '1 o{:^i eriJ 

0.'^ Jnio^i 9di oi fao^o9-iX^ ?on. p, Jt 3 8bo erfv"^' nl" 'v noni bb rf;- 

»i)Oi)Xoyi) dd 

.«oxX;tii5 to ;) tOvkI r -.oiiq ©.U*oXi)X/f 

->?aoJti)u|;hi< .a» oats':*, ttlTsdni 1' cj noxaloeh er(T 

,ni?p; cii s*noctR lo -xovrtl nx ^i^i'toi'- 







This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner of tr 
trade-marks reftzsing to dissolve the above-entitled interference. 
The essential feature of Lown's application is said to be the word 
"Capitol". The essential feature of the Ohio Coffee S: Sj-iee Co. 
is now said to be the words "Capital Coffee" and a group of Ameri- 
can flags at each end thereof. 

It is true that the marks as shown are different, but it is 
also true that the "short phrase between the buyer and seller" 
v/ould be substantially the same, as the difference in sound be- 
tween "Capitol" and "Capital" is too small to be noticed by the 
ordinary purchaser. 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks is affirmed. 


M.S.M, ^^^ M.H. 

^^' ,.. U, s. Patent Office. l//^^ 

Ex parte William H, Lord. , Recorded- Vol, 61, 

— ___^_«^-^^*'^ of Appeal • p.SSg^'J^i also 

Trade-Mark for Pish, 


;'jl^3, Rep» ._^__«.^^f^s claimed exduslT* use ii 

Application, for registration filed February, 27, 1897, No,53,080. 

iB:essrs,. .Ol^rk,©, & .Baymond for applicant. _^ ^ ^^ ^.^ ^ ^ 

n. :;^r^-ciy tr" _____.^ -•' either to the quality of the 

,-'~'-'-^'- "^ >fhis is an appeal from this decision of the' examiner' of'**^ 

■^ sc case th-'^ te-r't -■. .^.''- ■ot bti ■■'.'. a j- _1ml 

trade-mancs refusing to register the words "white Wrapper** as a 

■"•*-'"■' ■' ■ ->-- 

trade-mark for canned salmon, on the grotmd that a wrapper of par- 

caTm.t. -o:v''.r ^u^y i.-^Ti-- ^ ^^:t'=t^to iXR ^ , is diffictilt t© 

tictuar color alone cannot constitute a trade-maiic, u-..* i*u ut*, uw 

This question se«ns to have been passed upon by the de- 

t]-.e. ■:o-lor o* the pscKjiti'i* ";-;?: ■!<■» ' swfNi'i'J y r, ro^ .^^n -, 

cislons of both the office and the codrtsi In the case ox ex parte 

Landreth, 31 0»G», 1441, the essential feature of the mark offered 

for registrati'dnVa7\''S^^W|\rtefcrth^e1oMSI ^grf^^S^M^'fo^^'^ 

the tradeo '^'"^^^ ^^ ^^ **®^^"* ^"^ '"^ ^^^^ 

' carrot •IftFfwl It ^j ^ swi «.v^i u*?'' vp u<!*!- •'':f t>» '•'^in— * ; r 
In refusing registration ft *^aslubstanHani'-^atd tAat 

neither the color alone of a package nor the color of an article of 
ISi^erce can con^tilute a trade-mark. "^'^^ oro^ak^^P.. 

In the case of Pleischmann et al. ▼; Starkey, 25 Fed. Rep, 
127, the question before the court was whether a yellow colored ' 

label was a lawful subject of a trade-mark. The court held that 

The daciaj-on of the exs.'^lnsr of trft riv^w^-n--- ; i'-^^t^^ 
the color of a label, apart from a name or device, cannot be the 

subject of a trade-mark. To hold otherfirise would be that a manu- 

:ifcaj. HUT. '^ers^jru, , 

facturer might acquire the exclusive right to the use of a label of 

a certain color or to the colored paper in which his goods might be 

.HJ.1 1 

-^5 ,eon^O :tn8;tB<I .8 ♦U 

.685. q 

.080,53,011 ,Ve8I ,VS xiBi^icie'? bslit aoiiBtizi-gen lot noiiBOllqqM. 

.insollqqa to!C bnoraYsH A e3i^BX0 .aiaasa 

lo isnirauxe sriJ lo nolsio©£> srf* otdtI IssqqB hb al airiT ' 

B as "TeqqsnW oJixiW" afc-iow Qdi leJaigsT o;t aniewlei ajIiBin-ebBTJ 

-aaq lo TeqqBiw e cfsrf^ bfUJOTg Qtii no ,noffllB8 bsiinBO toI aitBin-ebBiJ 

*3fiBm-9bB^;t B e^w^i^tanoo cfonnso enolB toXoo tbIwoI^ 

-eb sAi ^6 aoqss bsaasq nsad evBil o;t ameea noi^taeJJp elrlT 

eJiBq X© lo 68B0 9ffJ nl ^aitaoo eri^t bnB eoillo adi rfrfod lo anoialo 

b^^91tlo ^tem edi ^o enuiBeH iBlcfnssae edi ^I^i-X ,.0.0 XS ,ricfeibnBJ 

^ol Jb92[oBq 9iew aboosgrf^t rlolrfw ni :^Bd bet b &bv nol:fBT:J8la9i ^o^ 

^ebsni odi 
tBdi blBQ '^XXBiJas^adua asw *x noi;tsi*8X39T aniaiftsi nl 
lo eXol.fiB flB lo loXoo 9 rii ton 9§B:IoBq b to snolB loXoo edi ledfi&a 

,^iBta-'QbBii B eiisili&noo tiBO 9019011000 
,q9H .b©*? 6S ,X92I^B:t8 ,v ,Xb *9 nriBmrfoalgX? lo saBo Qdi nl 

bgioXoo woXXsY b nerict9riw antr iisjoo &di eioled noi*89i;p edi t^SX 

^BdS faXori v^iwoo 9rfT ♦3(•^Bm-9bB^^ b lo ^toetdJ^ra XxrlWBX b bbtv l9dsX 

edi Qd iontiBO jeoXvgb lo emBn b ffl0^1 iJibob ,X9dBX s lo 10X00 9rf^ 

-Uflsm B iBdS Qd bluoxr eelvnedio bXori oT .i'iBffl-9bBT;t b lo ioeldus 

lo X9dBX B lo 98ir Bdi oi Jxigii gvXaxrXoxo edi silupoo :>risiffl iotu^obI 

ed iff^in aboog alrf rioirfw nl loqeq b9ToXoo 9ri^ oi 10 loXon niBiteo b 


. ■ _— — _ ^iiji 

This might seriously interfere with trade and with legitimate 

Judge Maynard, of the Coiirt of Appeals of New York, also 
had this question before him in the case of Pisher et al. v. Blank, 
33 N.E» Rep», 1040, where the plaintiffs claimed exclusive use in 
their business of the term "Black Package Tea." The court held 
that manifestly the term had reference either to the quality of the 
article or the color of the package in which the tea was sold, and 
in either case the term could not be made the subject of individual 
appropriation. If the adoption of a package of a particular color 
cannot confer any proprietary right to its use, it is difficult to 

see how the assumption of a name i*iich is simply descriptive of 
the color of the package can be lawfully protected from use by 

Without reviewing the other authorities to which attention 
has been called, it is sufficient to say that it seems to me that 
a person camot lawfully claim exclusive use of the color of the 
package in which his goods are enclosed, and as other parties may 
enclose their canned salmon in white wrappers or packages, the term 
would iimply i|idloate to the purchaser the color of the wrapper. 
Under these circumstances, the term "White Wrapper" is not a valid 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks in refusing 

registration is affirmed, 

Benj, Butterworth, 

June 8, 1897, 


e:JBiHi;tigaI ri^iw baa Qbffii ditvr sis^ns^nl Y-tsJ-'oTtss :tr{glnj sirfT 


osIb ,3[t:oY wsM lo alijeqqX lo iijjoo eri^ lo ,MBnYsM eabtfl 

t^fnsla .V .Xb :J9 larfel^ 1o eeso e riJ nl miri stoled nolc^astrp alri* bed 

nl QBU eviax/Ioxe ftsmlalo eUltnisIq 9ri:t etsriw ,0^01 ,«q9H .a.T! £S 

f>Ieri iiSKio 9riT "♦bsT eassfo^'I ioBla" tsnei edi lo aaeniaxJd "tlericf 

&di lo iftilewp 9ri;t o;t ^9ricfle eoneielai bad t/nei sdi \lia6ti.aem iBdi 

bsiB ,J)Xoe &BF s&i BtLi dotdv al Q:gB±>sq Qd^ \o nolpp edi to 9lol;tiB 

iBtifclvibnl 1o io&ldu^ &di sbBta ad ion fcXuoo nrte* sdi aaso Tsrf^tlg nl 

ToXoo islJioi^TBq B 1o.9SS2iOBq B ^to aoiiqobB edi J.I ^noiistiqoiqqB 

oi iSisoltlib ai ii ,eax; sJi Oj ^riaxi YTS^tg it qcn q yhb le^noo ctonoBo 

,!J;0 eviJqlioasi) \iqriitB ?1 jrIoir*r gniBa b Ip noi;t qrausaB grfcf wori 998 

Yd 9SSX iRO-tt bQioeicnq yXXirlWBX ad aso a:g3^s<i^9di "to 10X00 9ri^ 


not Jne^ctB. 4alxlw oi zBlitiodisiB iBdioed:i S^iwsivei ;Jiiori/XW 

iBdi em o* smaes *1 ;tfiri* ^bs oi inetotYtve al ^i ,Jb9lXB0 n99d eBiI 

edi to. loXoo 9ri^ lo 980 aviajuXoxe, aiXbXo vXIuIwbX ^oxhbo nosioq b 

YBfTi aeiitsq tadio «e boB tbeaolone bib aboog aJtri riolriw nl 9gB5loBq 

anei s di .aasB^ioBq to aigqqBiw 9;tlriw ni. robiIbb bsaoBO itddi esoXond 

.leqqaiw ai-^ lo loXoo erf^ rteaBrioiJjq ed* oct miBOlbiii xlqmii blvov 

blLav B ^on al "taqqBtW e^lriY/" cnecf &dt ^agone Jsas/n lo gagri't TabnU 

aftiawlaa xl4 a3iieci»ei3«i| !tQ lenlnsBxe ericr to noXalo^fe 9JcfT 

♦benninB al noi ctsTJa igai 


,Ve8X ,8 ©nm, 


July 9, 1897* S.E.T. 

M.S.M. ^ 
U. 5. Patent Office. </ 

Ex parte E. R. Durkee and Co. Recorded Vol.62 
--,» page 14, 

Trade-Mark for Starch. 


■Application for registration filed April 19, 1897, No. 5S, 448. 
'M&ssrs. L. W. Serrell and Son for applicants. 

This appeal is taken from the decision of the examiner of 

trade-marks refusing to register the word "Imperceptible" as a 

trade-mark for starch. 

This trade-mark is stated to be applied to the boxes or 

packages in which the starch is put up for sale. It is clearly not 

descriptire of the starch as so put upon the market. Nor is it 

clear that it is descriptive of the starch as gpplied to fabrics, 

though Tifc ether it is or is not descriptive of the starch so ^ plied 

need not be here decided, for the reason that the starch so ^plied 

has not only ceased to be an article of trade, but has in the pro- 

cess of ^plying it to the fabric been subjected to chemical action. 

The trade-mark is registrable. 

The decision of the examiner is reversed. 


Acting Commissioner, 
now Assistant Commissioner. 

July 10, 1897. 


23.I0V befnoosfl ^qO bns eeslnira .fl .3 scftsq xS 

.8**,5e.oPI,'f88I ,ex IXTqA belli nol.+Bncfeiaa^ nol nolcfsollqi 
• actriBolIqqB lol no8 bne II9^^^8 .W .J .sisai 

1o isniniBxs sricf lo noiaiosb eri^ racnT: nsjls*. si Issqqs elriT 

B 3B "9 Id iiqeoteqral" b^ow sri;t ^e:tai^9*r oJ saiaiflet eiAt^msbsn 

•rioiB^ts TOl iiBDi-obeT 
10 asxod Q di oi beilq«j8 ed oi be^B :f8 ?A ^iBm-Qbeni eiriT 
*on x^'^BB lo si ;H .elBa lol q« :fjciq al riOTB^a erict rfoirfw ni aesBDioB 
:Jl al loM ,;t9iiBffl srf^ noqw cfxrq oe as rioiBcfa sri.t lo erUqtioea 
,aol^dBl o:t beUqqiB aB rio-tB;ta edi T:o evx^qlicaeb al ii iadi ibqL. 
beiXqc^ oa rioiB^a edi lo svi^qlioasb ;ton al to al it ladiadfr rigworf 
beilqqp oa rfoisJa e di iadi noaseT Bdi io1 .beblseb eie d ed ion bees 
-oiq sdi nl sad iu6 ^ebaii lo eXoi*iB ns ed at bssseo i^Ino ion asi 
xioiJoB iBolfioarfo o* beioBldus ns9d olTdel erf* oi cfi ^atxLqqjB lo aae? 

.eldBi^alSBT al jhsm-abBii ariT 
•be8'i6V9'x si lenifliBxs edi lo noieioeb sriT 
,Y©JE;9 3tC.^.A 

, 19 no in a ImraoO gni^toA 
•lenoiaalraraoO inBiBiazk won 

.vesx ,01 ^xwi, 




August 2r,,l897. 


U. S. Patent Office. 

SJL Pai'^e Th e Ceorge C, Olll Paper Oocpany. 


Application for registration filed May 10, ^^97, Mo. 53,607. 


'/^ / 


essrs. Chapin ft Co, anfi Mi*v. F. A. Lehraann for applicant. 



This j,8 an appeal f ro ra the decision of the examiner of 
trade-marks, refusing registratiX^n to tJ^e words " Old Yorkshire 
Llls", as ©:pj|>lied to pnpor. The gv*x>v*nds of his refusal are two, 
p*^'*"^» ^-^t the expression soupiht to be registered has for its most 
proralr^ent word a word of geographical signification, and, second, 

'*c a sirallHr >»ord, viz., • York Milla\>* hajS been previously 
fe^istered for th s same class of merchandiiK«i. 

Either ^f these groi-nds seems to be sufficient to justify 
^he examiner xr^, refii«inf3 the registration of the iK'i'ds in question, 
le decision of the examiner of trade-marks is therei'ore affirmed* 

Septeraber 11, 1897. 

A. P. areeley 

Actinrr Coraiissioner. 


.X'<»RX,'"'S itirst^f^ 

•••ItlO iaeSB^ .8 .U 

.YttoqaoO iBV^ XXiO .0 eaioef^ eriT &h»<l i 


.Voa,5?, .OM .veiBic .01 YbM DsXn noi*»^^«i^i 10^ noiJ««oUqqA 

.;MiBDlIqqB toljnnBinrfoJ .A .-iJ ..nM Mib .oO * nlqBrfn^' 

/ k 

10 lealmBXB Qd) to nolBiosb 9r{>+ ^ oil laaqq* n» «\f- «^^ 

,ow.+ e^B iBSirlsT airi to 8bmJ<ria «riT .loq^q o; 

? fceiX(|tq.« •» t-aJ^^^'* 

Jaoffl a.U -^ot 8Bri be-^oiBik^i &o oi idTSUoa nolaaeiqxe 9 di lt%<^ «^'*'' 

Xiairol.— ns9d ««rf -,^eXXlH ^ItoY " . .slv ,btow -itainlB B 5*^^^ 

.8'rfib^l5Ho^em 1o aaaXo ©mtsa « ri^ -^ot be-i0*8il; ' 
^ill.+ aia 0+ +n9lpl'iti''^ 90 o.t amooa abn-foia eaerf^ to -lert^Xa 
.nox.tasirp oJ; Bbtoir erf^ to noxcfB^.^alaeT eri^T nnUirten P^ lenlfflBxe erfi 
.bonnlltB e-^'^^'-'f-f si 87[^Bm-©bBt;f to lenXmBXe erf^ to nolaiosb orfT 

.Tsnolaai^or^ nni-^^A 

.veax «ij[\ierf«>^^^^^' 




^ TiYTI TT i rlTIT'^r'-T T- ^■~ T Tj ; f i ll Wj i n ii r iiii ir^vi i i 

juiy ;i, ittyv. 

U. S. patent Office, 

S* Bj» T* 


Pe'jlt Idrt-; purohaue: 
Al)pllcat,j,9nij.:C©r;.r^3gi6li«ition filed l-^ovambBt- 13, 1895, Mo, 50, 245. 

«*'—■■ — — — 

M^.,. Obft^iC. 010,1 f(yr upplicant. ••©frift' Ucan' 

This is tin appeal from the decision of the exominor of 
t rH de-marks ryf vising to r^^L'l'ster thfe.-r'Sp'if'fes'aitat idri'^t ^'^ci^O^-'br h 
the word -nrown- --i^ n trarte-nyrk for a certain cl^iss of cheese. 

The reference upon which refiisfe?at ton in refused is the 
trade-mrk of T.H. Hod -son. No. 5,189, re^f .'st'erejd-OcttS'beJ^ 2,lf?77; 
Which shows Hml clains as the essential fe^iture a --urt er in an ovyl 
f m w-j t h a_ _cro.i7ji. i n Jbhoiip p e r or center portion. 

The ground upon rhich this action v/.-;o oascd is th^it t>B 
salient feature of the reclstered mark is the cr.-v/n ano that the 
cheese to which this mark is applied would pix)bably bo known to the 
orrUnary cla.^s of ptirch.asers as "crown" or "ci^v/n brand" cheese und 
that therefore cheon. b.^Mn^ the applicunt»3 mark ^ould be mista- 
ken for that of the rocistrant. 

The applicH.nt st .-.ei^ously denies this and contends that 
the registrant's cheese would be known as the ",>arter" cheese or 
the "ITodsson- cheese, since she holds that the garter is the iali- 
ent feature of the trade-m^ark. 

.Yytii ^ un 

"f P 'T 

,ei^S,0<'..o?f,?.6aX ,oI ^ecffl5ovoF fcolil rioiJH^ ctaig^T toI noi;tBolIqqJ 

.inooxXcTrir to*!: III?) ,n ,3i»rf0 .iT. 
lo ^c^i!nf5xo ^r^:.:^ to noiaioeh oAi itoi^ Xyoqqw m» t- i airiT 

,VV8X,K ^9do:toO b9*io;r?.X?^eT ,e8X,cl .oH tftOBsboP . . To :(Tt-n-9b/?i, 

■ , . . ■ .. - . ,, ,^0. SQ . ^. - rf. ^■^ 

,aox.t-, isqqw ofji{ym._B rf>tiv rho' 

eriit jBrii one nv- .1 tC'ipbt &o^8^^•lT^^ otsr.^i-eT: cfnsi 

or'- -'Wonsi oo liXdiJCicnq bX^iov; mxititi; ' ' "" -'■■ 

:twoi\:-: ed M;'Otr eseorfo a •^m't ^aX?t ' 
-£Xij* oxf:' yri* ^ttffct Rhiod oria oonls ,9aoDni' 

The crown in the i>sfristered trade-mark is quite prominent 
and I agreo with tho examiner t'at it if> the fentiore which, woMld 
attract the attention of the ordinary purchaser, and that this mark 
miprht readily bo confused wit>- that of the applicant and therefore 
the exaniner properly refused to register tho applicant's trade- 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks is affirmed, 

A. P. Ore'iley, 

Assistant Gommissioner, 
Jiily 12, 1B97, 

wmeammxi — — ^-- - .-. — ^ 

S'ljjfn sirfct ^Brfv-^ i)nB' ,n»a£«rio-{£rq x*^*"-*^'^** sf^''^ "^^ noi;tne.^^B 6i\i :topi:fi» 
-Gi)s-tv-t e«:rn»oiXqqe 9r(cf ns^taiao-x o.ct beaxTlsi ielT©ci[<»-tCT tonirwx^ erf* 
. .-mtniB 3i a:inijn-ei>Bii 5o ^enirafxe Biii Tto no.E«io?^ erf?' 


PW^W^r— ^^ 

Recorded Vol, 61 p. 336, y/ i 

May 5,1897. 

U. 3. Patent Office. 

Xavier de Bejarry 

Trade Mark for Velocipedes, 

application filed Aug. 21,1897. 
Henry Connett Attorney. 

The present applicant being a citizen of a foreign coun- 
try and declining to naipe commerce with a particular foreign nation 
or Indian tribe; his petition was denied, by the Commissioner 
"The oath does not comjly with section 2 of the Trade Mark law" 
S. a. Fisher, Ass't. Commissioner. 

LUXl ijMi^i^Qoo&k^ 




Exparte Bouillot 61 M. S. D. 335, 

Applicant was ac^itlzen of Prance. His oath failed to 
844te that his ma&k was used in commerce between the U. S» and any 
foreign nation or Indian tribe. Applicant contended that the mark 
should nevertheless be registered since Prance was |fl thin the pro- 
vision of a treaty" (Sec, 3, Trade Mark Statute) Petition denied 
and new Oath required. 


So T. Pisher, 

Asst, Commissioner, 




.acc .a .a .m is ioiiiuoQ »*^B(^ffl 

):r h^ns^ rf^Bo alH .eonai^ lo nesl^l.oB .bw cTnBoxIqqA 

YnB bflB .8 .U eri:r neewcfed eo-iemmoo nl beaxr bbw ^I^Bm alrf )sdi ^s, 

t^Mm .Ai ^Bricr bebne^noo inBolIqqA .edl^cT xiBlfenl ^o c^oUsa ngl,- 

-o.q erf. nirf.ilifeBW eons.', eonlB be.s.alseT sd aaelerf.-xeven bUn 

*elneb nox.icfe'T (e.xr.Bcre ^^bM sDb^T .S .oe8) ^^;fBe-x* b lo no2. 

.i)9TlifpeT riJaO wen 

t^erf«l5r .T .8 
•lanoiaaxannoD .cfsaA 


.. 3, P^itent Office. 

JSz parte The Peorletit Carbon Blaci; Coinpaoiy, Llilted, t/^ 

Petit, i'-n. 


Applicalio/. f:)i :^ir*l:;v":\i. i.l3d Hay iv., 

Mes.irs. r« r„ roolliTic :• nor. for £Pi.iioi/.-iit, 

-lid riot be . . ' 
i'hls Ic ai: ar^^^al iron tho deoislon fit \ :" 

for carton Lji^.c" . T}\f: rorr-ical tu or: the .Tiriii-n-f. VnRt no one h?.*? a 
rlc-"'"*' tc mor- - li a rrard do55«ripti\'e of tlTO pjood'n 

to -.rr-lch it, ir --^rr 3 :U->c-.. 

101^ , ;- ■ ■ - ,a ghMaM ^Tcip- 

are xK^t '^fr^ .'■.,■: '■'-".'. p>.r. trtdr-Toar^s «*© 

o"fc^lyv3iy po;i-.ln-ii.:-a.'«-'j Vj ci^;i-rvv ^enr''r-, "/rr TOV(' "Prrrle^os;" io 
f'^ a rrord a£j ^p »rii::ari.-i x-,-.? :. cj' r.<r'PCh.''ntc In ». l':.udato:iT ?::f5r.'3e 
xtoii thRiv ;vr.r.';-, rr ;<p-pclip::t»:, 151, '-8! is 0:^ a superior quality 
l^ltlg r-i^OH-!r to syo stoto. .-iiy r^orson, norrover, vho thia]is air, "blaofc 
His nip'^rlGtivo Ui' -ansur^aaced or ry^-'j'loD" ^i-^t? an muoh rlnJit as 






• > 


,BQtl.l.Q ^a-3.^.8'1 . 

.&9d-lr:i.i ^x^sqnxoO .Hofiia ncdisD a;oIao9^ arlx ci-Jg-i x, 



r> » 


,: lijioii'iiij "ioi jtoH 

il CC-: . 

,£.-1; ;.-?; 


•"/i- • r». ^'f-^ri ^ , r 

ornns rrrc+r..:; -; .' 
jtoJsXcT nil'.' G:'Jilni ciitr ,-:9V! ,.iobi';C •'?l!'^ .e^ri^-a m^ 


J3 folOtf « t" 

i|i|t to so designate his goods. To give to one person the exclusive 
right to such a v/ord as a trade-mark would be to deprive the public 
of its lawful use in language. 

This word falls within the class of words, such as "iucoin- 
parable", "sterling," "standard", "wonderful," "superior," «most ex- 
cellent," "faiaous," "splendid," "unrivaled," &c. , which Mve been 
properly refused registration. This word "Peerless", in fact, has 
also been refused registration. Ex parte Butler, 54 LIS, Deo., 130 
on the ground that it is a word in comnon use describing q-aality. 
Any word which is descriptive of the quality of the goods to xfhich it 
is applied should not be registered in this office as a trade-marlc 
for such goods. 

K^ To appellant's argmient that it had been the practice of the 
'o^ice prior to the Butler decision to register the word peerless 
aE|d that it is still the practice of the office to register equiva- 
le^it words, it may be said that because an error is conmitted in reg- 
is'^ration, it is not to be followed as a precedent. I have carefully 
eor^sldered the authorities cited by the appellant, but for the resons 
atated he-e I consider that the word "Peerless" is not a valid trade- 
Biai^Ic and should not be registered. 

The dicisim of the exaiainer of trade-marhs is affinaed, 

Benj. Buttorworth. 
October 1, 1897. Comissioner. 

oviBwIoxs orii ncB'req: sno Oo ovig oT .aioooa elti. sisri'gis- 
oiLduq orii Q'vitqejb oi 9cf bLuQ-w iltshi-Qbsii s ss i)'ro\v s rloira o» 

,9SBJ7gaj3l fil ee,ss LulxmL 
. -iiioofri" SB cione ,ai>iov; "io saBlo arid niriJ-ivf allBl Liov; sirlT 
--^e J-sofii'* "f'xci'xsqx/a" " , Ii/iioJbnow" , "rttBL^nsJa" " ,s^iiIiod-a" ,"« 
. iiaocf 9VBi5[ rfoiflw , .Oi?) " fbsLGvttan" '\bibneLqB" "^airoLtBx" ",; 
asxl ,oOB'i rri ."aasliss*^" Jb'xOTj alriT .noiJ-fi'^icfaiaeT: Jbeai/ioi ■>•] 
,0ol , .osQ .31: 1-3 ,i9lj-ifg oJ-^Bg xa ,noi:d-siJ-als9i LoajjTtei rree 
.Y^-E-CBJjp srrlQ'iioaoib 9ajj- nornrroo ni Liow b si it isiii iixri/ois 
J-i lioiriw oj- a£>003 orlo lo x^^^-'^^P Q^J" lo ovid-qlioaGL al rlotdrr b". 
2liSi'ii-ebB's:i s as 9oil:lo atrli ni bQ'ieiai:g&t e6 ioa bLuoiiz bet 

.aJtocs ffj 
0£ii I0 GoiJ-OBiq orlJ- n99cf ibsrf cM d-srio d-noircLrgiB a '>tfiBllGq-q;B oT 
, .aeQ£'X99g £>io?; Grio ieisl:s,&i oi aotatoeb leLissS. orii oi tottc 
-sviup9 -X9d-al§8'x oi Botllo edi lo golJOBiq grfd- Ilid-a ai J-I j 
-391 irii bQiitiasioo ai to-xie rxB sai/Bogcf iBiii bi&s ed x^m it ,ai:tc 
YlIjjl9iBo 9vsr: I ,ir:Qbeoeiq s aB Jo9woIIol 9d od" ion al cM ,rroJ 
anoaai orii lo'l J-ji/d , u-riBlIgqvfB oriJ x^ iigJ'io aoiui'roncfx/B orlJ Jboie 
-ehsti btlBV B ion. ai "a89li99<?" blow oAi isrii i^btanoo I e sr' 

,£>9'i9d'ai39'X 90 ion ;-ii.xu- 
.bernfifiB ai a;IiB«— -^I:s'-id' "io 'xgniciBxe erlJ I0 n iaioiJb 9n'T 

r .loa-oiaaimntoD .7081 ,1 "3 


I ■ i^ooorded Vol. 62. Page 28C, ^^t.. 

U.S. Patent Offloe. 
3, Kornajieti, Bros. ^ CoT" Ltd u t ti 

l-ra«o.:.:ari. for Leaf Tooacco, jj. - ■ ^ 

Api.aioatia3i(x^_;torn3hoi2a, Bro3. ci CO. fila-tJiine 1:3 . . .. ., 

Hess-s, briQGen. . . ro, 

T '-A 

rr?c:hciK,.-j>cft*» i?- Co. 

This is an ap^aai from the decisions, of th^ ^--rl^or or in- 
terferences, rondcrod .iaroh 18, ISJV, Arril 27 jrQc -. r ^ , 

♦ *ww<, ii; i J.J. <,/^>7, ax"._ Jure 2, l::07, 

on June XG. 189G, ifernsheln, Bros. 8t Co., thr jnnto i:^rtiOB 
to this intorforanoe, flici a^ appUoatxon for tl.a r^giclration a . 
trado-iaaric fpr loaf ^ooacoo, aamfa*turad tc.;:aaeo, anci el^ar., of the 
word. .Blac:;::o.30^« 0. t.. ^«^,,,,,, ,^ , .lao:. ..r.e.^' .0513. 
trati:n rofusoa.on tiio r. : .oredl marX to Ilar^r^vo ^ Son, ^hloh 

.«i.v ..or^^, a......... ., lotorial rcprosentatlor. 

^- *^- -'■-'■■''^^- 'i^ad tiorse. 

After -""v"- r-^-i-'-.T/-. -■" ■?---.- -fv,*,, J. ^ 

- ■ ' " " ^" '■ ' '•■' ^ - "f-riererioe^ v-sii; declared bot-TCcn 

tip ttro partita, the-, issue t«»ipe> 

ho>»R' o-^-rn^.; .^^ T ;"-*'•' -^-'"3^' cjivi olio picture of a 
i'OJ»p. applied to chewinc: tobacco»« 

■i ■ 

, T'^o^irnoriy vas duiy ta]:em in behalf of HcrnsheUs Eror. 

" appearance for Ilargrave C-. son, nor -^^ ^ -- 

- "- .- ■'.ii tnoir own behalf. 

^c^, • 



. , ' J ,1 OV ii -^X) t; 3C o/i. 

! ->,-.• ft Ti-nH ' .S 

t • 


.- ^ ■• 



I i-tji'^y* would seorn to dlsolosc tliat •Eiac:-. ilorae* l-ia:; 'tween usftd 
' '^ gald j-u.nior party ana. th^jlj? pr€!a©o©9»or» in buslneas as a 
trad^-raark for tobaooo for aoout a quarter of a oeiitury; but 
f^ioro lo not a -fotA of tost,lj:iony to shorr tlrat tlioy ovor &ol<3 
dn otmce o f qlaptrlnp: t- " — —.o ^ ^jjidjQT this trado-narlc, or that they 
ovor applied thtr. t,--;. -^^vli to a ain^le paolca^io of this class 
of tobaooo. The .-junior party h«s thereforo ontlroly failed to 
■ :ov tao A(iopxi:>n ;*ndn8« irf ■^H«a of tl^ isjirk. t331a*^??o.>*«r<»* ap- 
plied to o!iC"lr.f tobacoo, and neno© havo not sustainod the ^yurden 
of r.Toof s&fittr^, M^or thorn* ^' ■;; '-^J^" • ':'' --i'- '■ ^- 

•Juderaent of priority of adoption and rif^ht of the trade- 
jaaviL in l^-s-aa la herf5t>y randerod; in f&Tor of J* It. Ifergra'm 
a; Son, the senior party herein." 

' . intarferencos "oq" 

dn Ilax'ch 24, 1397, Hemsheljn, Bros, C: Co, nade a motion that 

■ of' inlei"! 
ne osaialnor of intcrferenocs suspend the Intarfsrenoo and re' " 

tho s&m©, the grouind for this motion being substantially that tho ex- 

a,al.nor erred in holdir:r that tl^^o failtLre of Hemi-ieini, Bros, .. Co. to 

-ntabllsh by eylclDnao that thoy tised the trade bark as defined in the 

1-3 sue on ohoTTing tobacco at a date prior to tiiC W0itlSSB£XSBSM. date of 

varcrave & Don Trafi the basis of a judgment tliat thoy were not the OTTnor 

thereof, or if this holding ^orc not erroneous, then ' 'v - -od 

In rendering a doalolon of adoption and uae and not dlsrjolvln^ the 



On April 27, 1"97, thr exaialner of Intorfcrenoes nada a de- 
cision donylnr this notion statinf that-- 

•All that th-<^ ^xainlner of Intorforonoos has axooldcd or attonipt 
tie dealde Trac ao to the OTmorshlp of this trade-marK. used on the 
', partioi'.lar article of raorohanlime " ' '"-a Insuo, and In so 

\ doinc 'le Is of the orinlon that he ,,,..... .,. ^. .-ror, Bein>- of that 

J., \opinlon, he iiust an?, hereb:/ does refuse to dlatiiji'D the d^-claion 

Iready r.ade, but reaffirms the aane,* 

■.call) ccf !!©08 fcluow ,'•• 
niaxK^ fcils •tcljn.rri; ; 

>j9f, t to , .:.:.JlJ^^ oom/0 rm 

A. 1. 

: oi Jbellcf 

■:■-- ,V ,L 10 A . -1 nl iffiu 

a 9rf4- ,noa A 

ir- area's l>ni$ ocn^iiel- v-iue ?;• 

od- .CO :■. ... 10 rr ^ o'M *arf. ->rf nl Jrot-r© 

aii4 ai ''-o oij- -^qui} yorfj ^Brtw aota-^ivo *^ rlaixu . 

to t:i' ■-..,.^. ■.;v..;-K>o.;.i. - .ciiqr fti-jBJb « ^« cr 3CrlTr: 

lomro r.'/ow x'-j^^^ ■' i/iwaafexit e t« eliatf Ofi\i r.\«.Tr acC ^i ov 

Aor'i:© ii 0tl4 aoffd- >gffl W WMW i l e *OJT.d»t©w ^rrlfclorr elif* 11 to ,".1 

9Ai s^'^v" Joi. i:..!.. apu b.tA nol^^rcL;; 'io ncioleofc « 3nliQ£r»i 

fcc /i 

"B 10 r Ic - ■ J XIA" 

Abaci orf 4'3/fi' lo e.'" 

On Fiay 3, 1897, Hemsiieiin, Bros & Co. moved that the issue 
be reformed, for the "reason appearing obviously upon the record." 
The motion was denied by the exaniner od interferences on June 2, 1897 
-^Fror. these decisions of the exatniner of Intei'ferenocs this appeal is 
, t alien. 

That the issue of this interference is narrov/er than the 
""clain of Hernsheini, Bros. & Co. , vThich is placed under this issue, 
is plain froin the record. It has been repeatedly held in patent 
cases that a broad claim should not be put under a narrov? issue, and 
I thinX that practice should apply in interferences between trade-marks 
" When it becex'ie apparent to the examiner of interferences that the issue 
..was not drawn to include Hernsheiia, Bros. « Co.'s claims, and 
a proper motion was made to reform the issue, it seems to me that he 
shOMld have transmitted the motion to the examiner of trade-iaarlcs to 
be determined. 

It \7ill serve no satisfactory purpose to pz^olor^ this dis- 
cussion; suffice to say, that the action of the examiner of trade-marks 
in drawing the issue as he did, and the action of the examiner of 
interferences in refusing to grant the motion to transmit the interfer- 
ence for the purpose off recasting the issue, were erroneous. 

The decision of the examiner of Interferences awarding prior- 
ity is set aside, and the interference papers vfill be transmitted to 
the primary exaiainer, who will reform the issue and return the papers 
to the exaiainer of interferences for the purpose of considering the 
question of priority on the new issue. 

Beno. Butterworth. 
October 2, 1897, Cohimiss loner. 

".-. . ......0 aco..,.-: i-.o.-rji 'lo ^aaiiisxe oM lo anojaloefi a 

"■■•• "^ 9=''9ioli3*rtl 3trr.- 10 ox/eei ocii tcai 
,a^ai a..« ,e.™ .oo.r, ai rfoid. ,.0= .. .,o,a ,«aar;ar:.a,., 
*.:e.., „x Man- .I.oi.eje, asa. 3^ ,, .^,„,„ ,^, ^^ 

.190^*90 ...,,.,. ..x«toi m vij^a 6IX/0A-S 9oi; Ja„-, 
^- ...a.Io 0..0O . .ao,a „..on-a.«„ 9..Io„, c ..».. ,r ..0.. 

x9..ii:isxo erfcf o^ nolcfoiu 9rfc^ i)3,.^cMr^rifi'x.- evsxi 

-■^^i x-u-JosiaiJBa 0£r evisa Ilfrr +i 
■ -« ..nsx9 ad, 10 „o»oa s« ♦«..-.♦ .^aa 0* sor.l-- • 

^o .0.1.^.0 3,„ .0 .oi,oa a:,, .„a .M. ad a« a„3ai a./ 3,,,, 

.«™a„o,.xa ,o„a., 9,« 3rr«aaoo.'.»o aac^-x., ad, .c 

.ox/aai wsn erT^f no Y^'^'xci'.-.i to .^c. 




dilgust 5, 1SG7, 

)r Oj 1080^ si 
Rooorded Vol, CS, P, 290, 


U, C, Pa ton I, Office, 

■ ■,ayto. Tlio Yalo 2: Tomio lianaractur iiig Coijpaiiy, 

2v&do:2i''^v}i for Loc'is and Eullders* Hardware. 


iplicatlon filed Decsr.ber 31, 160C. Ko, 52,CS9, 


X ■'-^.,,-v -(- ^- yji-. 

■^■^-ev^ fnr applicant. 

i — 

K 21"ilo i0, an appoal from the iioeisioii of tho essninor of *rac'f>« 

fries, rerudliia -o i-afiistor tUo nord "Yale" as a trade laarli for looi:n, 

istraticii iG rcrusQfciOii tno groxmd tliat thu word la public property, 

Dii cleacriptivw of a lool: of a oortain kind, 

rho r-OGords of this ofi'ioe s]iuv» tiiat EiQi*e tJiar forty yaars 

o or.e Liuus Yalfo obtainod several patorits on-. .. , Those patnrtR 

o ilo, S,CGO, srantad Jui^ 13, lQ4Ai :-io« 0,111^ PO or.- ar/ 13, 1043; 

10,144, October IC, IC'-iC; N&. 10,6&4, Tebruary f.E., las-i; Ko, 

,93^;, Hay ' , lS55«^,.J[ii 13^. Liaus /ale, Jr., ip^vov^f. trrr,c loclto 

obtairied patBnt L'o, G1,27C, iioiTiaia-: and ?&ylcr r^?cc5rr,r>:?:"?Jd tv.te 

of lacK as ^tj^e yale loci., and ao atatec^ in their r^^-tont lio, 

205, of April 4, 1&71, !i?}:ey m.y of tiiciir invcnvLior; 

" '2he r^tux-o of tiiO inveritioii ia sucl- as t© irBtte© it appll- 
oable to Liany ::.itids and forms of lool.a, ai though in the aeoom- 
panyins dravrir^ it is shown aa applied, to tiio T:eli-::TC.?.-n Tals 
pin loci:. The oonstin-iction of the Yale pin looK. be4ng well linown 
|tjj„,.,a brief, dcscriptior of l^phiOTQ will feo/sui-fiHtieTrt." 

Other inventors alco reoorRir,e and ©all this Ir-.c: tY.c Yalo 

.oes .^ ♦SO .lov to/jtcoi^^i • • * 

6 -V) 

V, -C^A 

^ ,. ^S3 ,CU ,3081 ,IS *I»df:3&aa I>Oli^ nolJBOlI 

Bisfr: -^tJ^'xCi audi inm t&iU woils ©oixxo um -'*'^^ 

,cl! ifiovhsi it^ir^ al bOitGia oa mjj ,.IocI er.?Y nn •^'^f "^^^ '^ 

4to.^^'iov:ii itoti:^ 'io ^sc -^;fT ♦IT3I ,-> liiqA lo , 

[ XI9W 3n*©ci- :JlOcI fiiq ©Ii*Y rrol^oin-^cr T .:IooI irrr 


locl^. riie Taylor patent, llo, 224,215, of iloveKioer 9, 1380, states 

that the object of the Invontlon- 

*lc to fona, in a oheap er i sir.ple maiirier, a key hub or cyliii- 
aer with aa ^ri£jiler, o-.:rved, or sirruous eiot, aueii ae Is uoed 
in oorXiCstlon with a longitudinally srooved or corrugated shoct- 

ir.etal liey, havine £:ido olts or S'.^rratior» liice .he well :-noTm 
"security" Yale-lool-. koy,» 

r;Another patent to laylor, No, S02,79G, of July 29, 18B4, 

says : 

*:Zy objeot io partioalarly -to improve the oonstruotion of 
T^hat Iiavo Ijgoo^-o ezton;3ivoly iinom and are faiaili^r to pai-o'iacors 
and users of loaks 2:onerally 1^ the United states as "Yalo oabl- 
Tiet-loalin,» ■ ; of the &\: 

SyroXa, lu his patant, To. 4.31,^05, of Feoruai;^ 11, 1330, 

:pea::iaiC ofiue invention aays: 

•This invent lor. rolatos to loclcs of t'ne *Yale* pattern, in 
■Thioh the latch or do it is operate 5 by a rotary barrel, whioh is 
xaxtaJgilly loo}£Od acainSto i.;oveiaent by tumi)ler-pins, arid can be 
trjrned only vhon said Jncibler-pins are operated by aii appropriate 
"Key. " 

Still further shoiyinr that th^e tor?.i •Yale* as applied to a 
looi; has been long rc53r;nl;:.©d as describing a lool' of a certain dof i- 
jaite corxctiu&tlon, retoreide jnay bf; nade to Volume 14, liioyclo. Brit, , 
9th 'M, , uhorc, on paco 751, there is illast7'al?ed by Pi^rr 25 a pii. 
txanbler loo]: which is tci'nied the "Yale Icali", On page 553 of ICripihts 
llechanlcal .'dictionary, GRpplOiiont, a pin tinnblor looJc .is al::io r-'aovm 
and it is t«rinGd a^Jfalc lock". On page 554 of th- saiae publication 
appears a list of locl^s of different classen or ^linds, "Yale loci:" bc- 
Ir^ in this list as a loci: of a specific and Tfoll-fcnown class. Tho 
different dlctionarios also refer t3 t?io tor\ "Yale loo'K:" as descrip- 
tive of a certain kind of look. The Certuir Diotioaary says! 

TO 1 rs 

coJfiJa ,0381 ,G lediuDVOlI 1o ,SIa,^^':iS ,oII ficniiBq icItcbT 9jJT ,; 

-nclii^iiovii.l: Qilc( 1c u-^)iuo n.iJ- Jj 

-nilYO 10 cfuri Y9^ B jiaiTnfifii olqfr^ift ^;fs qjsoifo « £Lt ,n?io^ o* al« 

■^oexfc ' '-"ixflnoo 'fo tevoots Ylli-rrlfcr-.*/ ' - '■■^ — rrco xil 

mrorr:: Ilr; •::ri£ a -'c.f:^ riiT- n tc siicl _^_ -j 

Brt'?GBi<'c-iijq c^ -ri-iiiltx-^ ers .tar n- - ... i:io o--ccoo cx'flff ;fsrfTr 

-IclBo cXbY» rb aeJ-fi^a teiJtctU etii ift Y^^^Pt^n^^S rjLccI 1o ercoai; 6ns 


: a xxci drmvixi oi'"--": 

ol rioixJw flQ'ciBd y;i&ioi & x^ ?:eiB-riqo si ilea "jo liotBl erTJ rfolrfr 

©i'Blicxoiqtqc ofi ya JboJ-Bioqc o-ic GiLtq-'.oiujiujC ni^_ uon-jy Y-tno f:or- " 

•■ • ^ ■ ■ - 

B oi t9tLqqB 9B •oIsY? «rts»* ♦'f* tjsrf* i^rtlwoifa teii&tsfl LLtiH 

f,&l^d .olovooui »M SBO/XoV oi iib&n sci yjsci «>«;t9T'>iei ^rrcIJ-oi/i^Oiioo oi 
Tiiq 3 S3 •5iT,rr',l'^£ rd tntB":-fsnLLf. nt sroif* ,15? r^sr rrc ^-^forfrr . ,5^ rf 

a&rij-^Xn'l to 55o o3sc[ rrO ,":: .)! qIsY" ei;^ ftoa'io* ci riolrfTT ;[ooI telcM 
rraroxla orlr. ci. Xool "•olcfrm.f.'- rrlT g , ^nontKtcfqnf; ^v-iarto.'rf'oJt '. TjsolTrfirfB 
aciifioiXdwqf ofltee rid" 1o ^ee 'r^vscf nO .«i£oo£ 0l«1f»fi Jbonn^d- ^.^ . .' 

-Go " , ■? sraaBfilo ^rrstB^'lif: "io e;fooI ^o tell b e-.or- 

orfT .eesXo mrorrX-IX' r /^as o-Lliof'^ia 3 lo jiooX c bb ;f8il si/.c ni. ., 


■Yale looK, a safety-loolc ir rhloh Is used, in place of 
wax'us , a speoial form, of r-in tim'ulcr admitting og a great varie- 
ty of oorabinati -nB, so tiiat the ohaiioe of opening; the l:cl-c except 
T!7ith the right Iroy la rendered very araall* Siio Key Is flat or 
oorruGai-Ovi in lonijltudinal lines^ and fao key OtCnirLf: In the"looR 
is very t-mall, to £?aar3:" against thb use of false Keys or tic bloir- 
ing,.i:^,or po-crdc • for explodinr th^^; lock," 

Tho Standard Dictionary says: 

"Yalo loci:, a tioiahler-locl; havlnp* a flat 3cey with an im^-a- 
latinr, edce, Linloclied ty prs^filng apriiig pin tianblers to such 
d^sfcanaca an to permit rotatlor= of the barrel of the look hy 
■3 key." 

TPrcxri this review of the liuorature of the subject I am oon- 
vinood that this term or name has beco:.:e well Itnown and is desoripti^© 
^*f a certain class or I^lnd of looX and oarjiot he appropriated by any- 
one parson, even %he patuntuj hiriself or hia suocessors or aissigns, to 
dr-i... '.e a looli o? loclis i.iade by hln or thara. 

Appellant^ However, argues that the naiie "yaie"* is not only 
applied to the pin t-oinbler look invented by yale, mit to- oiher'Xcaka 
Inveiiij-^id 5Ln.d pate.ftted by Yale and otimrs; that the -CToi-d was ever in- 
tended to lesigiiato only a peculiar forsi of locic is nesatived by the 
faot tiiat yiiqbii .t.i;^c .1:- I/.-, bier laol: of Limis Yale, Jr., vias put upon tn 
the iaar>at it was marlcod liice other looics of his invention "Linus Yale, 
Jr., Fatoni/," and -^hile pin tianblor loclcs were being put on tu© market 
thus raarl;ed, the navit ''Yale" f^ained a roputation as a look which did 
not li,;;;c rii:-tu" ■:..:■:; 'Jiiil cc I'rir froia tli© nsa:^ "Yale iuca-' ;jeixij| 
synonyiaoiuj ^Ith "pin-turatrler lt>c}cs'», the conti*ary is establlsiied by 
the fE.ct tiiut-Yuiu'b I'lrfciu .L ■'oiiuion rt.^iaocd entirely to bank looks 
■which Tfcre Imow years before ho made the piu-tuiabier looks, and such 

Xool . rrioo 

• vj. .-. .lioaoJo si JE>na nwon;£ XXow eriTOoed euul diaBa to tsn^>^ ■•iU .j o»i.w ij,.c' 
YTiB yd bBiQtnaotqqsi »cf jforLtBO Hie X&oX lo Xj.ii-i to 88i»Xo rrlBd-too ; 
g+ ,-— i88B to r"-''" "^oci/e aXff to 1X96.-:.^ it;>cje<i -> : . roatei 

«r»rfJ- to rfiil ytf 9f>«f.i aifooX to -^ooi :i 

a^tooX tsff^fo o* *mf ^alsy ycr i>odTr9vnl 2£of i ntq arid ot Loll 

-rti. tove a«w X)tOT; MSt tBAt jB'i^ i wo l)n£ ©XbV ^u j.-^Oii -•:,;, iJtii li&v.:.:: 
©ri* vcf bMyliOQan bI XocX lo nrrol tJslXiroo<i b vXrro od-Brralt Lof 

,oXbY BirrriJ" nol^'rtovrrl Biif to eiooX »ieriio o:jflX fcoittBfii bcw Hi 
i'BJitBSi erfd^ no *jjcr aerXetf ♦tBir b^CooX toXa'rir;j rrlq; olirftr fine " , trxr)ij-B«'i , 
ijlh Tiottiyr AooL £ Bti noXd-fij-i/viot a Iconic:'; "oX^ . exit ,i:c a 

Yti Jb»)fiaJ:ioxiJBe al ^jtB-r^fncr ,"a:?£ooX tftCcfr.iirJ'-ffiqr" rftfi- .r/io 

•--» -t . J A s.* . _ 

tme, it is no reason for recleterins ine mark, but, on the other hand, 

... ^ ., , • *hy it ahoxild not be 

it is under the deolsions a c^od reason f(±atotHgz registered 

It matters not trhether the loolcs invented and ratenijod by the YaleB 
were pin- tumbler loolts, baifi: locks, or other Kinds of looks, they ^ere 
patented and Knomk as Yal . e locks or Yale paten toja loclcs. 

It is ^911 settled by all the authorities that whan an In- 
itor Obtains a patent on a devlos and said patented devioe is Joioto 
jby a oortain name, the name becones pvbllo prop'erty at tJw expiration 
the patent, 

Tho m, & EliG. 2noy. Of Lav:, Vol. 2G, page SIC, says on this 

II ?;■; 

'uaniG of Patented Article after Expiration of patent.- v/hen 
M. *t *^'®**/.^^^^J ^ oroatel, mioh as an invention, and is Patenter; --> 
der the patent la^:/, and goes into use to such an ex'uont as to be 

•«■• v» 

Slven a imie, either by the Inventoi or the public, that i-icn i- property of the patentee during the life of the patent. Put 
the pater. t law is based up-on a principle whicb g-ants a monppoly 
01 an invention to a patentee tov a llTnitod period, on oondTtlon 
that tne inventor -111 disoloso the ^oL-: inv^.:.tioi, and after 

,^i'^,®f ^'T i""" ^^ f r ^^*®''* *^^ ^'^^^^^■•® ^^11 *^ave the free and 
unrestriotod nae of the Invortlon. To pennit ai^~ ejctension of 
-ae aonovoly, oy protecting the na-e of the patcnte' a^ial- ^s 
a traio mark after the o::pir^tion of tLo patent, ^ould-be a vio- 
n^i*^' ^ tnia principle, and hence it is that the oourts of th<- 
Ucltftd States have held that -here the puolio have ao- 
,Toi;ff^ ^^ij/iel^t, by the eviration of the patent, to tise the In- 
I!«i ?^^f^ '''''' oquallv e:ltitlol to ua^. all^, fx^as, i.aoL- 
age,>, l,-^ool3 or other indicia which have been used by the inven- 
tor during the lifetime of the patent, to indloata too ideiit Uy 
Of uii. patented artiole. Shis aprlios to tho inventor's narn, 
it being held that if the inventor hinsclf continxwc ^3 nanufao- 
tuPG whQ article ai-ter the expiration of the patent, and desires 
to protect his ovm p-rsoriil rej-ntation, ho uust adopt a ne^r and 
arolorary trade-^iurk and build up his rl^ht ©f ownership therein 
exactly as if he v/ere a strari,fo-i\ ■ 

A few Of the oases on this point ai^ revier/od here. In 

90'storr '^■Z^ror^B ti y^ 

^ Ji 

«o*:UJt>-. vil 

.: -. ■ . .lq 

oeoHoGtb Iliw rtotrrsvrrl ori^ i'Jri^ 

r''tB o : ■r-iffJ' *n' • r* "to not&m^l i 

-Civ £ Jo £ioliBttqxQ 9r:i iQtIe iz&ci oi:Bti s 

o^ ■■■'■- - ^.--, -. .-^..^ ...--. -, -^'-ir ovj?- "'■-^-■^'-' •'lithbtiU 

_ ^ 

? -^cf ■ o no L ^^jQSjq 

tflflJ- £)Iorf gnio 

uz fS: ^t io . ' 1 OiW ofi^'i 

■ ♦'- ■ Q B ^ytOW Qri 11 8i5 xI^ojexG 


the case -oiT '^Tioclcr 5: \7iison Cc, v. Shaiicspeare, SO L, J,, du 3C, 

tFl-iQrc an iii^-uiictioii was sov^iil to .-osir.air vlie- use oiT :4l:^..w<;?rds,,'*vrneol-- 

er £; Wilson" as applied, to so"/lLti-iiiaQLlD>.r3^ 7. c, , said: 

»It seeurj to mo. that tac ixano •yrncoler 5; '.Tilson* oaaoju; c lis.v, 
jOiO to signify the tiling manufaoturG'! accordino to the prir.ciplo 
of tuc patent. T^iat boin^ so, /laEnuot jrpst'^ain anybody, artor 
tl^G expdratl-r^ ol* the patent ^''fron! roprescntlnc Tiliis artiol<=5 flp 
'o^ins tlie artiale wl^loh rraj so palicntq^U ,,Jl-. man, carrot prolong hit; 
inono,.oiy 1j7 saying •! hs,VQ :ZOX a tridc':"-:^: 1?" t"-:-: -.zt.:c: of a t'ning 
T/::io:\ v-.r tiis s^ab.joct oi tl-.o vatcr-t,'" 

In tUo casee oT RiaiiardciOiii^.C, :., , 137S, -3p, aplliastlon tras 
made for fae registration of the words *A. P.iohardnon'c Patort Union 
LoatlaGr-Gplittins riioliine*" Her;lEtraticr;..,?ap- Jijo^Tu^ficd, Qn ttiQ gep-and 
thattlie name l;a vine been applied to a ratontc r.lcle during tTio 

ozlstor.c- .it h'\i joc:^ o aoscrif.tiyG of tli^ articlo and 

open. to the -uao of tho public on tho o^q^iration of t&e patent. 

In tiiG.Qaso of tils Tuolicr Ilfs. Cq« ,v. iJoyington, 9 O^G^ , 455, 
tliC plaintiffs rore inanxf-raoturlng tlio l^uoSier spring, bod under an ejj- 
plrod patGvt ai:d regl-L^terod.a urade i^rl;..consi3oir;^.,Qf, a Picture of the 
bed, t'-.e :.-onogi'inii "T, i:, Co.," and the \7orda "lu'jjker Cprin.'^-Bed. " Th€) 
defendants J \7ho were nanuf aotur in^ a siLillar bed labeled it ^rlth the 
words "'luoKor Spring Ted," Amotion for Injimotlon to rostrain tho 
-defendants froaa infrlneii'io th" plai tiffs' aarlv'iras re<iui30d on the 
ground that, tho rie;"'it to iise tho naiae and represent iUQ bed had booone 
publio property on the expiration v2 i\.. pateii«^ .aud. .that tho marJi 
reGlstorod by the plaintiffs liad not been used by tho defendants, cx~ 
oopt ao, to such olenents as vxcro cozainon property. 

In Chaavin v. Uallcor^ 5 Ch. D. , 054, the . plaint if f who raanu- 


» » 


, 'T's-q;r'-v-lGXf2 ,v ,oD rronltV/ A loIoarT.? 'ic en-;o O'- 

, ' rrtrir-T^-l-Tna nJ- £n {:--;:; nr, "-rr ::'IJ:^ ;•^ te 

:?B ?»Jo/.+rft Bt' 

8'^ . . .... : OlH nl 


> • • 



•^rt^ r: ' '.'li^Jt. 



x'acturod filters under z. patent, plaood thereon tho words"G» Cheavin's 

InprovGd Pator^t Gold ]ledal 3elr-C leaning Rapid Tfater riltcr," The 

defeniants mauTaotrired on the principle of the same parent, aiid 

placed th> . u.. ;..:e t/orda "S, Ciieayin's Patent Prise liodal Goli'-Clean- 

ing Rapid i^auji- _ij-wvJx-," Oxx appeal it was held t>y Jessel, 1.1, H, ; 

"You. ci£iv s^^ate in ao maj..: votOlb^ or "oy application that 
tlio £rtioIe ii, !iia"nufa»tai'«d in aooord.^nce with a patent ^hio]: has 
erpirr:d« . But if vou j^ ---'- ~:-~t it la rrotaeted by an exlatlnc 
patent^ yo-i c-:,-^.oi ^fcta.^- . _ . .r;ct '-or. of that repronontation 
an a tvs,^.; :., ;'OtGotiw.ix only extond.s to the time allcwod 
"by tl:.:: statute for the patent, and if the gourt »70re c^er^ards 
to protect the use of the wforrd as a trade niar\, it, Trotild he in 
fact c:t!,cndi. _; ulij time for protection civer, by the ^tolvte. It 
l3,therr:forG, tiapoaaibie to ailov? a ?aa>i \Tho has onoc had the 
protection oSE i- patont to cotaln fttrther protoctloij It using 
the na o of Uis i-auent as a tapado uarK, * 

Ig, r^ CoiiBciidatGd Fruit Jar Co, 14 0, Q, , 260, refjic- 

tratiQ^ v;.. ' - ^fcr tho; traao r.ark "Iie.son", ac applied to frait jarc 

One of Ihe^ reasjoiis £-jv rofuair^g ret:iBi.ration "?ra<? that -ths lirai'.e 'i?*'? not 

such a lairf'iil trade inai-lL, sineo it wa? tno na:".'? of the ,lr-7cntor of a 

patented article, attached to that artlele; that "ryhtl^? tlic Applioant 

had the solo rifiht to ruftJt© end desirnate the article h;- tt^ i-ano v.vitll 

the expiration- of ■ t}i« patent, yet he cprtsofd to have that ^xr'tislvr ri^:!: 

at the expiration of I'o patent, as all inpKers of tho article n'^v.lC. Lc ' 

entitled to describe it ly I'-v appi^opl^ttn desorl-^tlve nRr r= , 

Tho latest autiiority ovi this siit)jc?t Is: tro Suproiio Court 

73 0,G, , 
casn of the Ginger Co, v. June Co., 170C, In that, dace thn 

Singer '.iaciiiilie Go, -wore iianuiaoturlns mechincs of th'i typo disci vHiccI 

by expired patents to Sin^^r^ The SliJror Corrr-p-n;/ hra*!|[^ht -rniit to vo- 

strain the Jiaie Co^paixy from uslrig or mac"" bi-ilt by the latter tho 

• :. ^.^.:r- ^^ ■:-:'* ftO^^IOrfct fiOOfilq: ftiiQ^Bq B t^biVT BIOiLil SXYtiStOn't 

-nsoilO-lier. Lfiho:' •sli'l ^rro^rs^i a'rtivaoiiO .3" ciiiow Oi J no o-iari.? L00SI7 

' .t r CB fcror c 
o/'t feBrf eoftc sBft ortw fTBri s t/cIIs od' ol' 


-nJ: 9 , ,-0 .0 ^i ,00 tiB"i ,^iinfl; i>o4a£.i:i:oaiioO e^i r^I 


loa e. -f 

■ittoniis :.^-I orfl 

,..0VI , ,0D OimL .V .CO "^fiO 


I wo.i*d singer, -ifrtsioli tnc Slngdr Coist^any ..^J.^gis.©'! ^?.? *-"^'^ i^^'^- ''^rl: of 

'liid Giiigm*' G:ms:£^iij^ It was salfil 

*tV Is .sfell'-evtaf^r.t t>i^t or the #rpiratlcn of a pgt-^ 
lonopoly cT'eated ' T?y It doascs to Qxlat^, and tno rtglit t 
t;t>0 th:' ;i3a*>ri^'' acvBred ijy ^Tie patent bcooir^c paLlle propoi*- 

.. ty« It, is upon VtiHn conaitlon t?^at tHe pistis-fit If ■ ", 'm 

If *!'^ ■« It s roll.o'-r. f -oni tlv.- cesDatinri. or thn ncro^ .-^ ■:."•- *^o 
."slllTip: of thD patented dOTTloe Ixsito t^ri dorialr.s of tl4^3 piiMlo 

also nooecsarlly tjaas to tue publlo the rlo ilosl!;;ziattoil ot 

tliCf thiiv^ T?!;-l:;h ?inr: ardsj'-iii Ss-^riiv: tl^^ r;.,:\...,\ -17, ,lr QorvsC'.rnoz^co 
of tlio dQslfcnatlon liaviiig been a©<g:4i®»*G4 In 1:^ the crnndT^ adthor 

":■:/ ills 30 havlnf!; oorj^notol tJie nai^o ^t^- tlisr raiaal^lrjt"! as to lond 

•Pho publid Mvinn the right on t;.ie ox? 1 rati on of tli© patent 
D the liati'jntod a?t.lal<j and to uo© Ita consrlc-r^^io, 
triot t!it3 i\ge, ©it'-or by pra"?ffiriti:ag its bolng plaooS iipoB 
w*.o v..-tlol«-^ whe>r. im^^cjf^at'JTC'l, * s would l;vj to adSnlt tlia 
rlnlut n-nd at tn© aaa© tlT,© dosti^oy it. It follows, thon, tnat 
.l/je:* !{.•■' t tv Liso t]r:) 3.:^::;8 ir. ev^rj'' for?/! pa bc 03. to tliQ ptTjjlts.-^atBa 
-witn tho dsdilcatlon rtjsiiltiiic ^osa the sms^a&iWzex!:AT&%io^.:ii^ ISfiie 
:'-.ont» _ . ■'"■ " '' 

»'To-r I13 this rirrht s^Trarned Ijy differeiit prlnoijios w^.ere the 
.aa 'beeaao fjonerlo, lifyLt»aad of feoir^S an art!i:t,ra!ry 021®^ 
-r-i t;:c cu.iT.i>r**r Of fh€> pat.%it©« or o?if:inal aanafaQturo5»#'* 

Afte-f-^ j^QvlCTflr.g; mTJtrfsr'OT.'eC sutharitieg in the jsnerioan^ TIr^ 

and j-'rench cagosj, tlic c.curt oaid: 

:r;e rcoalt^ thsn^ of tno it.i^rlcati* tii© Ev^lish, an4.tha 
Frfinoli cLootrlirie ujilveraally upliold la thifc, ti«tt \3l:ioi?e., hiriw. 

^"- lifo of a'i -ly or:: ■ -' V; a xat^"t, 9. ra':o/ whcthoi- it l&e 

... .itvar:'' 02* 130 v.,..^ of t- „ ; n.tor» liay beooEi®, toy hlxj concent, 
eltiier ojiproisa 6rtscit, :. r-.tlfri^r:^:: .'rj-^ £:?enc;:ric ri33i@ of the 

thirg patont-od, tiiis r4ar)« v&.i^^-<@& to tVi pxrQlio rtth fria, acas^^.ti-jn 
or uho T.TpiiO|.o2y it!:^lch ^hc patt^rt nreatocl. * 

I f.<~ oleaf t>^3t tho QA^^'T' at T>ay f&.13.s squaral:-- t7itiiiii th& 

,^iEC laid ^oiTTi Iff tham- autiioritios and t>iat tno Yale Coraparji- aari 

JJ» leoi-^o rit'tht to til© '(to 1^1 "Yale" as ii ti-ad© mark for lo'jX.a Invant^ia by 

the Yalas and raaianiacturi&A lof^r appellant, whet or the ^ell-knoinri 

-^oq:'C*sa[ ©lldijq j3©r'00!5cJ 4t!g*3<i erf^ -^ Baimrdft ^^I'i^«BFiot 3r»*4:J' Off; 

,or:r^" - t-l'xsno'j Btl sow oJ- Brrs «iXei:*Ti5 bOi'r.o^^Btr oaii- &Mrt -■ 
o.;4 to nc.t^B'E.tcixossjafiJtesjfiaES: orr^ caoit 3cri*Xi.'B©'i nci^J-BolfcaB orfi- rfd^Jti 

,,0ilO X^B;:tijS'^B ilB Si^iM&d to i!:'Bt.J,2rii jCl-rSTfO'l Of .'00 v.' e5;:f itoi "■ 

"♦Tim4Xi?-<>i3ti;n^ci Xs^iXsIrro *ic ^oitteJr^q p>r'.-f to ''♦^'-■'^••■'•f'^ :; ... 

-•©iS' ^.-TSoisg^nia sif^" al 80iiXTerfi-iOT! siroititjtrjn aitl-mive^ ^e-ttA lias yfiBilsis; &fii ^iTsoi-ioti/l o.n;J- to ^rrorf;}- ^^flLtsot 9ri2' 
3CtXt.r-:ft ,i3iDffar J-s/r* ,,airf# ei &X&r'<TE; ^tXeat«>virrjT dnlfJ605 iffiiTOi' 
3tf ;fi: 'tOfiv}:or:«r ,dnri.'i ,a ^IrrslBi a tc<^ Xjo^-eciO •^iiXc-rofTori & to otlX ©xi; 
^*ii!!»5xroo nJtif -^ jSffioc^ecf surf ^iOvAAi»h¥Kl orfd to i-Bif* od" 10 ■riJf»'''^-^^'^ 

*.'-o;?Bn*::'^ .: : i -■':"- ^r-;^:^r -,;;IoTar£Qf.; cult t< 
erf# alif^-i^ '-slS'isirpa eXX^st *tR<S ia oeao mid- &&i^i ixt^Xo r«a I 
asiii -{^G'titcO j)XiiY Off.? .i-Rrfit hsm ao-Ui-xorf^fiifi ?»a*jr>^^ t<^ 'hwofe WbX ©£i. 

_& .>*-r i» r _- 


-alo pin tinijier loolc or tho Yalo bnrOi or otlior looks, t];an tho 

"incar Cortpan:^ had to tho r/ord 81ri.':;ory Or: tl-^o otaer .-,n.rl. a-y one 
rrlio T:ia3co3 a loc:: ol' th-o tyre diBCloccd by any om of tlio o:a.lred patent 
f tLc Yaloo has a rin<it to m^rArmp^te suoh a lock as a "Yalo lock," and 
t ro-iliS. oe proier ai'id tru'? nam© ox' mioh lock. 

The dooiclon of tho GTsrirer of trale /arks is r.fflmod. 

Bono. ButtersTorth. 

OotoUjr 1, i£!&7. 

July 20, 1897. Recorded Vol. 62, Page 375, 

United States Patent Office. '^ 

gx parte Haaqodec Watch Company. 
ytt« mac Trade-?4arlc for Tlme-Keeping Instruments. 
> Of a — -• Petition^ ,,^ 

Application for registration filed AprU 8, 1897, No. 83, 354 
Mr. C. R. Miller and Mr. B. G. Cowl for applicant. 

This IS an appeal from the decision pf the examiner of 

trade-marks, refusing registration of the words "Henlo Park," as^'^ 

trade- mark for time keeping instruments, which mark, as stated in 

the application, has been used at Canton, Ohio, upon time keeping 

to K 
instruments, and particularly watch movements, since April, 1880. 

The particular ground for refusing registration as set up 

in the examiner's answer to the appeal, is that the wo-ds for which 

•-' ' ' ■*<;.« or--': 

registration is sought have no other than a geographical meaning, 

and, do not, therefore, constitute a lawful trade-mark under the 

decisions of the court and under the practice of this office. 

While it is true that Menio Park is the name of a small town 

In New Jersey and is also the name of a town In San Mateo County in 

California, it does not appear that either of these localities is a 

manufacturing town. Certainly in neither of these towns is the 

manufacture of watch movements carried on, and while it is true 
|>i •"- , b'.it, whar6 

that If the business of manufacturing watch raover.ents were to be 

,o» 111:0 cffia^Bl Si&iBi& beiiaU 

.»dC,£t .OK ,V68j: ,8 £x«xgA lisUt notiBiiml^ei nol floli«»lI 
.^oaoilqqB tot XwoO .0 .3 ,tM bna loXIlM .X .9 . 

lo i9atmHX9 9di tq aolei»8J> sriJ moil It^ejqs n« ai alrfT 
m MA "t3(iB^ otns?;" aftnow ari* to noJ::tBn*al8»t yriaulQ'j ,33tifira-aNr 
nJL bdiBiz aa ,3Ci«m rfoirfw tBin&mutianl aniqaei ani* lot 3(iBffl-a64i 
anlqoa^' .... ;;; ,olriO ,iio^nBO Ss beau need aflrf ,noiJfl9i^4qB ^ 

.0861 ( IltqA 9onx8 (B^nafflevon rfa^BW 'zLicLutii'^Bq pan fainemiftit, 
qjj Jsn -^ ■^•-jaT aniautai nol bnucnj lalisotiiBq ariT 

f{oir{w not ai>>o« nAi iBdi ai «XBaq<|B ari^ oi lavarui a*ndnimBxa arf^ 
(3ninBem £b8 irfqeiaoas b nBr{^ isrfcfo en avarf irli^uot ai nox^Biiaift 
arii nobcii! HiBtn'-ebaii LsjIubI a a;ta;ri;tanoo ,aiol9i9r{.t ,*on ok \bt 
,90i*!tlo zisii lo asi^ofltq axf^f nafiini/ dob *iuoo arf^ to aaoiaia 
nwo^ LLsmB s to ainan Qtii ai :<*xb? oInaM iaxf.^ suii ai ^i aliriW 
ni Y^niiO':> oojfi&ii aji»e ni nwoJ b to aiofin orf^ oalB ai bcia ^osia^ waK 
a ai aai^ilBOOI saorfJ to neiliia istii tBaqq* ion aaob il (Biniotir 
ariJ ai anwcJ saarfi to -tarii i9Ci ai xLciiBiisO ,nwoi ^aliuioBtun 
3ui3 ai a di£ . (HO JsaitiBO a^namaToai docfjsw to •*iu^aBtun 

ad oj anew a^tits.TtitvoB! rfs^taw ^iii/^aBtuosm to aaaniaud arlJ ti Jb 

estabaiahea t„ ..ther of these towns, t,o,. encased 1„ that 
n.« woua* have the r.«ht to P„t the „a.e or the locaauy on the 
products .aue there, the ocntingency la too „.ote to har the grgls 
tratlon of a which haa heen In uae In a pureX, arhUrar, 
and fancim senae hy these appaioanta for over .eventean years. 
»hlle it is true that Menlo Parte la a geographical term. It 
does not, u, ■«. opinion, stand on the s.^e footing as the word 
"Ooau„Ma,. co^only used to designate the United states as a whole 
■or the word "Mckawanna.. the na„e of a region of country m Penn- 
sylvania, or .international., or .Jast Indian,- aU of which have 
bean held not to be lawful and all of which are consid- 
ered or referred to In the decision of the Supreme Court 1„ colu^ 
Ma Mill. v. Ucorn, «5 o. o., 1«6. m all these cases the word 
on Which suit was brought was one which was of such a nature or 

covered such an extent of territory that it ..= 

ii-ory mat It was necessarily to be 

e,ual truth and would therefore have an e,ual ri,ht to employ It 

' for the purpose for which It w&s u^ph k„ ^u 

b n XT. VHB used by the person vho brought 


I The line Is not easily drnwr. i ,, ^t-i 

asi^y arawn in all cases bet-^een those worfls 

Of geographical nature which are registrable and those which are 
»ot. but Where there Is reasonable .oubt registration should be 
h-"-. in the present case I a. clearly of opinion that the 

-la.d iBAi ni b.8BSfl* sa^.r.a .anvo. sa.rf* to isrf^rio nl bariaild*^ 

• lata eriJ tad oi 9io«e-i oocr ax xoaBi,aiinot> sriJ .•lerf^ ebam aio«h( 

.natildnB yle-rnq b nl .a« ni ne.d .«rf rfoirfw in«*.9b*T^ a lo noUi 

.anaex naec^nevea «ro tol a;tfl«r>xi.cHB eaari^ X<f eanea Iirtionp-t 

n ennsi lBalriq«nsoea B ti ^-«b«1 oXnaM ^Brf^ a^ni ax ii aUrW i 

i,^ow »riJ BB anUool anuia ori* no bne^a ,aolnlqo Yfli nl .*Ofl a 

aloriw i, ... .e^B^B ba^xnU sri^t a^Bnalaa* o* *.«« Minommo. NBidmuI 

-nn3«[ ax ^i^flUOD lo noxaan b lo amBn arf^ %BmiBW«laBJ- biow eKd 

av«ri rioxrfw lo IIb ^nBlDnl ^asS" to vX»floi.Bnte:tflI- 10 .bIiibv 

-bxanoo sn« rioirfw lo IIb bna a^.««-eftBn;r IuIwbI .d 0. ;ton blerf . 

-mxrloo nl ^tuoo ams'.qwB sri^r to aolaiaeb arf^ fli oi bsnialai no I 

MOW 9rii aaaB. oaari^llB nl .91^1 ..0 .0 ea ,nnooIA .v allir 

^o stu;rBn B rio.ra lo aBW - m- aao aaw ^rfa^otd bbw ^lu. rialrft 

9d oi >iXliBaaaaan bbw Si ^TBri^ >£nonn^8^ lo cfna^xo ob rioua *e-x. 

rf.lw I,.ow .rii V-me otuoa orfw ^^-^.^-^ e^ ^I-o. onari* ^Brf^ Damw, 

.1 ^iol^m. of *rfal'. X«upe HB avBrf anola-^arii bXuow biu. rC^uni J 

- -rf h«au artw a rfoxrtw tol aaoqnuq arii 


.t,ow aaorU flaaw;rad .aa,HO Ub ai nwBtb xLi^B^ ion ai anlX ariT 
0.B rfoxrtvr .aorf;r bna eldB.^alaan s.b riolrfw anu.Bn XB.xriqB.30. 
od ^Xuoria noUBn.alasi ^duo» aldBnoaB.t .1 s-^aK^ aisrfw iad 
eri, ,^,:. .nmxqo lO xXtBeXo ntB I ..B. ;»fl*«B-^q ^^^ ^^ •*^"- 

words sought to be registered constitute a lawful trade-mark and 
are registrable. 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks is reversed, 

(Signed:) A. P. Greeley, 
Acting Commissioner, 

Now Assistant Coramissioner 
October 12, 1897. 

.bs8i9V9T al 8M'Tcm-&b£'x;r 1o toaXMMx^ dsii to aoxclosJb »rfT 

(TsnoJtaelnsaoO ;^i^oA 
•i»nolaiJtninon ctncJaiaaA woM 

.vtar ,fir netfoii 


Sept. 20, 1897. « ^ . 

gecorded Vol. 62, Page 333. 

United States latent office ^ * — w^.v^.«„*^^,>--,— - 

* w^^ 

,r,„r .; so: at Parte Cream of Wheat Company. ' "> 

^ucts, a, Trade-Mark for Breakfast PoW."*'"^' "^^^ 
-02 and doe»- aot Petition. -^^ ,tnc>^J^ 

Application ^ror re6lstrati„n_n:ed May 18, 1897. No. 62,667. 
Messrs. Paul & Hawley tor appiiollit. 

This is an appeal from the iecision of the examiner of trade- 
marks, refusing registration of the ,ords -Orea:. of Wheat,- as ap- 
plied to breakfast food. 

The examiner based hi. refusal upon two grounds, na™iy, 
(1) prior registration of the same words for wheat flour, and (2, 
that the expression sought to .e registered Is descriptive. In that 
It conveys the Idea that only the best part of the wheat terry Is 
empl«,ed. „e quotes the decision of Assistant Oo«lssxo„er Jlehe^ 
in ,rorth Dakota Mils Co., se „s. Dec. 176. i„ „hlch the decision 
Of the examiner in refusing the same words for the same artioie was 
affirmed. In that case, according to the original statement, the 

»ords were also Intended to be auDHod t„ r< 

lo oe applied to flour, among other things 

^ the then Assistant Commissioner held this fact to be slgnlfl- 

«ant in the consideration of the previously registered trade-mark. 

In the present case, the words are to be applied to -breakfast 

Ifoods, such as rolled wheat, cracked wheat, etc.- 

.I£E ,8.1 .S3 .XOV l„i.-.o<,.« •"" .OS .»,.« 

.©oillO iaeis'i aeiBi?. baitaU 
.YnflqtnoO ;JB9riV to mssiO e^iB^ ^ 
.boo^I ;ta«lalS9-ia lol a£i«M-9i»BnT 

.Vd9,sa .OH ,VG8I .81 x«M bstn flOi;tBTJai8»i tol ciotiBOlLqqA 

.insoilqqfl tol X9lw«H A IuB«I .STaasM 

.9f)Bi;r to n9nimBX9 edi \o nolaias* 9rfJ moil I*»qq» rui al .Irfl 
-qa ZB %iB9riW to auieiO- «6iow Bdi to nolJBt;tal89i anlautgi ,aiiB« 

.boot ;taBti««icf o* ftallq 

.^letnan ^abnuota ow;^ noqu I»ai/t9"i alri b»««d isnlmBxs »rfT 

(S) fariB .tuolt ^B9riw lot abnow omsa 9rfJ to noiJBtcralas-x '^oi-'q (H 

iBdi ni .9Ti*ql-xt)89b ai baiscraiaai 9c! oi id-^von noia39iqx9 arii Udt 

21 >fit9d *B9rfw 9ril to crnBq Ja9d sdtt ilao iBdi BBbl sdi a^evnoo ii 

,9rieJti: ignoxaai-BOO JnB^JalaaA to noiaioab ar(cr .s^oup 9H .fcaipiqms 

noitaiosb odJ rfoiriw nl ,SVI ,.99(I .811 86. . .oO aUiU B^oiBG ri^toM rtJ 

3BW 9ioiJtB er.Ba Bdi lOt abnow 9inB8 eKJ aniarrten nl -ranirriixs 9ri^ tc 

ori^t I«flisi-»c> ari* OCt anlbioooa ,9ai» isdi ftl .bemiitti 

aanlri^ tariJo anoia« .tuolt oi HeUqqa 9d o^ fcabne^nl o.fB 9t9W abnoi 

-Itln^Jta 9d oi ioBt aidi bl9ri nonolaalmmoo inBisiaaA nsrii edi bcu 

.HiBm^nBT-t b9-.9iaiaei ^lairolvgnq 9r<i to aoiip-ablanoo srfi nl inB< 

iaflt5lB9id" oi bsilqqB ed oi etB abnow arii .9aB0 in9a9-iq 9rfi 

".si© ,iB8.-{w bsTlsBno .iB9riw baxroi as rioua .aboo 


I do not think that either of the grounds taken by the exam- 
iner is sound. Breakfast food and flour are different commercial 
products, and the word -cream- in this connection is merely fanci- 
ful and does not imply, of necessity, the use of the best portions 
cf the wheat berry. 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks refusing registra- 
tion of the words in question Is reversed. 

(Signed: ) A. P. Greeley, 

Assistant COHiraiss loner. 
October 11 , 1897. 



-toBxe adi Yf* ns-ilBi abnuon^ edi lo liedi Lb iBtii -^aidi ioa ob I 
LBtoi&mmoo Jnsiell^ii) 9i« tuort bns hool iaa^-iBSi^. .bniroa a J: teni 
-ionBl vIsTdrn el nol^oannoo a±r(^ nJt "rassio* ftiow ©rfl fins ,a*oubOTq 
anol;fioq rfaod 9r(;f lo sau ariJ ,>j;tlaa909n lo ,Ytqmi ;fon 89ob fans Iirl 

.ysTsd ;fr.9riw orfi to 
-Bi;faiaei aniairlsT •3(isjii-ebiirrJ to 'tanimaxe arf* lo noielssb orfT 

,b9%i9voi sl fiol^aeup ni abtow esii to noli 
,\:ei99a0 .«! .A ( :6©nai8) 
.I9noi88ia»ao0 ioBiataBA 

.Ve8£ ,£I ledoioO 


July 13, 1897. Recorded Vol. 62, Page S29. 

^h^rrz:. ^: : ,:":•...,:;.-., *- '-r 

D, S. Patent office. 

«,k^Xtc5 ■ 'f^ 

Ex parte Prederick A. Poth. 

^^ ^ 

. Trade-Mark for Beer, 

i^-:.u y ■■■■■-: ::ort •_ 

9tor^ interfer 

Application fcr repi strati en filed April 8, 1897, ?fo. 53,356, 

Mr. Hector T, Penton and Mr, o, H. Parmeleee for applicant. 
J' the wor » 1« 

This is a re*i*if>n from the action of the examiner of trade- 

ide this questioa in 

marks refusing to register the words "Tivoli Export" as a trade- 

mark for pale beer, 

«r re 

Registration was refused upon the fell owing ground^: 

1, The matter claimed is geographically and ordinarily 
descriptive in character and incapa'^le of appropriation as a 

trade- mark, 

2. It cannot be registered in view of the registered trade- 
mark IIo. 23,870, of the Robart Porter "Rrewinp; Cwnpany for the word 
"Tivoli* as api)lied to beer. 

The examiner holds that the word "Export •• Is purely descrip- 
tive and he is claarly correct, since the authorities cited by him 
ill support of his holding leave no doubt as to the natter. 

The trade-nark "Tivoli" of the Robert Portner Brewing Co. was 

intended foe use on beer which is to be exported and the api-li- 
cant's trade-mark differs from that of the registrant only in add- 

.aoit'iO ^ns^sf .?! .11 

.dec, 56 .oW iVeei ,8 iJnqA DoLtt aot3ptic t-^9t Tto^ noJt^BOJ 
,inR9iLqqa tot ssoIsbtib^ .H ,0 ,tM ifcna no:^n»^ .T io*0 9F 

-«bi<n.t to TsnlnBya 6di to nol&OB odi «ont nol^lctsq « bI airfT 
-sf)fl*i:* fi BB "JioqxS iloYlT" abnow arf^ 'rBiztr)si of ^^nlautsi i 

,iB9d elfiq lolt«trn-rB ■!>n Jwr: f fnl odi noqu bsE^ir^Ti 8flw H0Jt;fiji:talg9JI 

vLitBniDto bnjB ^if iBOir^qstgosa al boraisto -^aJ^cm eriT .f 
a ais noiifitiqo'^ t^- to •I-^BqBOni bn.p; ip.^'^""'pK9 ni 9Vi:tqJ:i0 8 9b 


•now 9f{J tot yiie(p»f> sniwaiP n9*T0«l ^nerfcJ? odt to ,OVe,CS .oil 

.10 a '^- beiliuijr ?f! "Ifc 

-qitsagb ^:I»iuq si "^tioqaat" bnow 9rf;J iBdJ sblori lenirxxs srfT 

miff '.cf bsfte BstittodinB sxfct ssnlR ,,fP&iTO© yXibeIo ai &ff j^na 

tieSiBCT. Sri* o;t sa ;f(fucb on eTsoX anlblorf «iri to J^ioq^qi 

BBw .-' ."ic*^ ;fn8cfofl ori* to "JtlovxT" jlTsn-ebui* er(T 

-il.qfi &d3 ba.B berf-ioqxe ed o* al rfoirfw rreed nc &su act bffJnr 
-bbB nl ,Ino .in«-«.tR.t-iinT 9rf* to ^TaMi aroit anattib ^fsm-sbBti a' 


ing thereto the descriptive word ••Export", which means only that it 
is beer jjossessing certain peo-uliarities adapting it to expott 
trade. The beer of the registrant being intended for exportation 
might naturally and properly be called "Tivoli Export Beer", and 
therefore the trade-marks clearly Interfere, the omly part, if any, 
in either trade-mark constituting trade-mark matter being the word 

The examiner also holds that the word "Tivoll" is geographical 
in character and as a consequence cannot be registered as a trade- 
mark. It is unnecessary, however, to decide this question in 
view of the above holding that the trade-mark is not registrable 
for other reasons. 

The decision of the examiner of trade-marks is affirmed, 

(Signed: ) A. P. Greeley, 
Assistant commissioner, 
October II, 1897. 

it SBAi \ anssm rfclrfw ,":fTO<!xa" b-xow Qriiqiiouyij sdi octsiorf, 

aoliBiioqy^B ^ot bsbnaJnl gnled inaiJalasT erict 1:o -issd sriT •' 

fcnB ,'"t93d :fioqxa lIoviT" ftsXfBO 9d xXtoqoTq hi\B ^LLaiuiBn 
tXns tt ,:ttBq ^iirao edi .oiBt^isint \(r.^£&Io a3I•IBra-^i)iJ^J Qcii aiol 
btow 9ri;t anis'l •i©:t:+Bm TCiiJCi-obBtJ :Qaliui iisaoo ^lasi-abaii t^Ai 

XBOlrfqBiaooa si "lEoriT" biow edi iaiii abXori oalB 'lynxmBxe sril 
-9i)B-ii B 3B *8n9;/8j:36t 9d ^onnBO eonsupaanoo b aa hns leioatM 
al nol^agtip alri;t ebtosb oi ,i9V9v;or( ,\iiBaa&09nnu al il 
sldBi^algst cfon aJt 3(TBm-9f>Bi^ Qdi iBdJ anibXoxi 9vodB DriJ ^c 

,3noaB9i tsdi 

.beunitlB ax a5iiBffl-9f)BT* to isniraBxs dK^^ lo swtsiosb sriT 

,X9l99mO .S .A ( :f)9nGif5) 

.TisnoXaalramoO ^tnB^alaaA 

.vest ,ix li 


Tradc^Iiszic for Rubr>er Tublr^ and Tiros. "^ 

' "■■ III ■■■< 

*fUoatton «r >^,Ut.-atlon rllo4 J«„e U. 1807. Bo,53.m. 

■nm I iK M iii, 

JSaasrs, ^l^ht, Brorr. & ^in>^ f^^ apxUoant. 

** >- 

Hto ^^lloant a*a the i^-itjtrotlon of tho writ 

«--e o)ea.,lner l^auso of « pM,r ronl«tr«.tl<,n or tho m,=M Sseaj^a 
«>. veloolpe^,, ^« ^,e ,, ,^, ,^.,,,^ r^l:=trat,o„ la Jul, u.ICas. 

J*«= the aeololon Of the «x«..taor thte sps«al ts tifl.or„ 
U 1. urcod 0. i«^if Of a^pUaa^H that a rocl«tratlon or Ka«8«oo 

tration or the 3«se rord for rabbp- tubim- *^^ +* 

.aooe. laoirc and tires, Aether the 

tiros are usod as a -^^w-t .%-p « ,«i^ * , ■ 

^ as a ^art of a voloolpede or bioycle or not. 

The appX leant is oloerlv '^rt— <»^4 *v, **.« 

« ui..c*ay ©o-rotjt in this conteni ioju 

Pnotp^^i^tlo tiros and i-jit-iIt'^ -t^n-^ ** 

aa dletlcot artiolog or it's/if^ *v.«r^ *iw^ -,. * , 

«-i.s oi rrad*. fr«3 the bi(^.oloa or. aSilo- tho tlrds 

ia^ bo used. 

■ U.O 4oolsl=n or tho e=tmi«r of trad^..^^ U rov.raod. 

(Cicrnod) a. p. Greoley, 
October 50, 1027 Aasistaiit Cosrsiisslonf^r, 

no^ Aotirc 


Raco?::'^-"' Vol, C2. Pa£C 4rK7, 

:jnlted Gtates Pat,>''V:t Oif ico, 
Hio :Je\7 PrFr^ao TlD-tarlni; Hill Conppry, ) 
rrac:''>-i:ark i*or Tnioat Flour* 


: or trade we..- , ' ..rl. J^o^X}:^'^^ ^'^^ ^ 

\ pictorial portion oi 'j.-q snal of I'lrmosota, T,'lth Vr.<y.:*ord« "^^'^'-'^^ '^' 

• '^ - 1 A<'f'* '^t3.* '^ 

She oxaralner's position is that ir. view of o^7^;tntn. aii'f^ 


tics TThloh ho oitos, tra^e warkr.^ consictinr osscnt/Iaily o;h > sy^^^'H^'* 
or ooatf3-oj!*-a-.Tn are not rerigtrablo. Th'^ t a^le msfrk has tlS^^"^ ^ 
toroi ii. i irno3?tf » Ir uhich <jtatc r.o question of/ prosui:\i/t,iVv-' ^^'^ 
f -Psalnoss can be ragiatezsjt raised ar, a rrGrOQtilslt|e to rogig^^ ''^.^-•^*'-'^'* 
"hl-3 doptr. not co<TTi to oiloct the :n:estlon or' rc^£rl|ctratl.9^!^>; '\^. ^^ 


It as - :jii ciistinctly :iela. thfii tli© ov^.-'-ol'-aiinQ or the V^'- 
i United. rtatT-. or o-r ?.n- c^at'" r:! jo re.""-iisad rOi-.-ifst-raiion ,anVx \ 
bolnt; acainst public poUoy, (L'<5h!'^sr>>'tonb(-^?r r.rj-os. |- SI Iir3, ^t'^^^L' ^''' 

'33 6qiU^lly to 'jhe ^J0aI o^ a 

'. ) ''^hnrc iG no doi:ht t'lf^t fl: 

T-, . . , - .; . . ., . ' . 

■^'•- - • ♦ .- - -. . - - ,. - . .■..,, ...v.. . 

00 propnrly lioea ay .^larl: for re^-o^.ar.ct^S''*. 
, as snc -.nch a pul-llc rl' 

or t5:o -.;.j..(j o- a:.y state, 5?he acai oi a -. 
■''f -'XCl^^sl Vf) apT^oprir. -i:' ■'■'- r>r-. -<• ■•■'■■ ■ -■ 
Th« decision of Lh<^? .;_ -. 

. .'^ L.^., v.; -,'iiay 
^:-t it;3 'USO 

■'';.• Ire iOflict a 

Ootoun^' 25, ^ 



-.nrrr TcT: r{''B'i-'.-:VirrT 


«r./%rfrrf'T fO Ifif^O 

• • 



Dgo. 1, 1097, S, E. T. 

United Statos Patent Ofrico, 

SS. P^yt^P I-orlng L, Citnmings* 

Trade-Harlc for liodioinos. 



Applldatlon for roslstration filod Aasust 2S,1G97, llo.54,r;il* 

./ \i 

/Messrs. B<^nediot and llortjell for applloant* 

This:' is ary appeal from the deoision of the Sxmilnor of Trado- 
Uarks re:^Dlne/'to rogieter t;ie words «l^?hite Laurol« as a trade- 
mark forlnedlo/ine. ReeiGtration Is refused by tlio Sxaininor upon 
the ground thM the laediolnal properties of laurel arc ttoII laiown 
and that the wards applied to medicine are desorlptivo in oliarao- 
ter. He says 'ihat if laurel does not ocour as an ingredient of the 
nedioine the Xbm uould be deceptive, and that the word "•white* 
merely enphas/tses the particular kind of laurel vThioh the applicant 

The ap^riioant contends that if the word laurel T7ore used 
alone it KiigAt properly be hold descriptive, or if the ingredient 
la-urel ^4re -^t used, deceptive, but the two words "miito Laurel" 
talcen tc^etT^ar^ arc rmolly laeaningless and ooiild be hold neither 
descri^iv<^7or deceptive, 

f^Z-a/tod in the lisaialner's state^aent, the trord "TThite* as in- 
dica^ir^ "^q/aor has ix)on refused registration repeatedly. The 
^oi^^-.^wlilio Laurel" ^ould sooin to indicate that the reinedy in 
*?^e^ibn is 'derived fron a speclcri of laurel, I o^mnot agree with 
th^ oontenM~<>n of the applicant that the words thotaselvos are 


// The ^t/OBision of the Examiner of Trade-Ilarhs lo affinied. 

(Signed) A, P, Greeley, 

Acting Comissioner. 

D^3CGEiber 3, 1007. 

• i- 


•oolTiC 4Tro^6l co^B^^a Jbo;MrrU 

•annlirrarO ,J snitoJ o^f-tBcr xK 

.BOXTjtoJtf>6^r 101 :{^r> t-o£'fiiT 



:,as ^wjsbA &f>m noi^sT^aia*^ ^ten. noit^pxiqqh 

•dTDSolJCrr-'fi to*t IXoprco!' brm &otbort^^ ."^n^"!! 

■^»rtsrfo rri r.- 

orU- Y<i - '1 aX rroli£ . 

I; ':r.^X to BotiiBqotq Xj5nXoXX)e« oTi4 Hfiuii bmrOTca ort^ 

'^ioaadb »«■ r ' '" .CI o;f " '' • "j- j^na 

'i 88 tateo :->o£> Xc-^...^ v t.^,--^ ■'- »T'^* 

XoiubX !!:o brtt:^ tAluoiitsq Oiic o yXoi^i 

■ \ ♦a^'coXijniD 

iX 10 ,ovl jX 9«oX« 
70W ottJ^ oxlcr 
rsoti bus 


-aX sfi •o^rXrtw* Mow ofl# ,^rtfv»^.6^a 8»i: 

~f?f, * »rr X>oci/ioi nc i c^oXfi 

SXuxyE; :ow 

snoXartlnBaa YXXdJcfw oia Vr>^,ti?>s^* rmiiBt 







2I0V. 34, 1CD7, 

■ -• 

united States Patent Offioo, 

Ex parte a. 17, Dunbar* s Sons, 

^rade-llark for Louisiana I^IolassoG, 


ApplioatiOA for reciatration filed October 2, 1897, IIo.54:,585. 


Mr. Jaiies L, Norris for applicants. 

This la an appeal from the decision of the ezaminer of trade- 
i.iarks, refusing i^cistry of the words "Old i"^sliion" applied to 

The examiner's ground of refusal Is as follorrs: 

"Refusal is based on the descriptive charactor of the tewn, 
as InplyinG that the preparation is manufactured in an old style 
or method, and, consequently, superior in grade; and that the word 
accordingly laolcs the , arbitrary and fanciful character iThioh should 
charaoteriae the symbol which is entitled to registry as a distin- 
guishing mar3'. of origin." 

Tlic appellants assert that th© words in question are not In- 
dicative of quality and are not deceptive, and that they possess 
the necessary arbitrary or fanoiiYil qualification. 'They also take 
issue trlth the examiner as to the pertinency of decisions to Tfhich 
he has referred in support of his $©9l*lo^» 

It Is Trell knoTrn that years ago molasses often contained 
a nuch larger proportion of sugar than is usual in iiodern products. 
It sceias then that the wordu In question, by a natural association 
of ideas, night and probably would suggest to the rcind of a con- 
sumer the supposition that the article upon irhich they vrore used 
resenblod in quality and sugar content the products of former tines 
If that supposition vrere correct in point of fact, the words T70fuld 
be descriptive. If it wore not correct in point of fact, tliey 
would be deceptive, -Dhe decision of the exaninor of trade-4iar3cs 
Is arnnnea. (Signed) A. ?. Greeley, 

j:)eeeinber C, 1897 



» « 

.ooll'^O iaoi&l D(>tBiZ boititu 

— o — 

•anoa G 'iBo'rnXl .U" ,D -'^ , 1^ , 0; x^ 

•aoaoaloLi BfrsiBijj-oJ loi XiBlI-eliBi'^ 


^Bifi&otLqqB 10^ Blirtoll ♦.! BarflBt ,iM 

— 00- 

-oLGti 10 1 19 oni lo noielooL ocli nio^ iBe^rjB iib el alrfT 

oi j:>e2iqLi£ "noirraari bXO" sb'xow ori;^ lo yrt^ala©'?: anleuloi ,B^tBiJ. 


iBTroIIol SB El iBexj^Qi 10 F)m/oi3 8 •terrlpisxe orfT 

■>i orii ic toioBtBdo oyttql'finp.ot erid' no Loes'J al Ibbx/IoH" 

- >a Xilo xiB nl fcoix/J-o/ilunBn el iiol^BiGqoiq oif* isrt^ ^nl-r-rrri 3^ 

brtow Off J- *fiffJ bne jafcBis nl •solrieqira ,YXJ-noi/poertoo ,bnxi , t 10 

fcXifOxfD fiolxf^T nod-OBiBrio IxiTtloriBl IjftB ^rtc^cMcriB- orW eXoBi Yl3nll)ioooB 

-nl^alfc B OB Y^J-cl30^ od^ l5oI*lJno al riolrirr lodm^ oifj oslioJ-oBiBrio 

• ♦rrlsito lo :KiBn anlrfBlua 

-rrl ^on €rrB nol4^86i;p nl abtov Bti& isiiS lieaaB a^fnflllotns orr? 

BcooBoq Tjof^-^ ;tBf[* I«ib ,ov1 J- looe-;: ^orr ens bus x*-t-Csi;p lo svid-floll) 

o^J c ' OffT , ■ ■ ■' ■ " ' ;. 10 vte^^lcJiB \' erfi 

ffciiiw ,. ,,.. ;ol'" ^'^'' ..,t axj^'-rrr-r-^fi .-■ ^. _^,^ ,..;jT2al 

. i lo d^tc 01 asrf sxf 

TTOc nojlo : on 03E ctBOTC i^-irfj- fmort?{ IleTr el J-l 

■" " r/ri B 

J- o^ . a bLiiorr . : f)f[B ^ . 1 lo 

XailJ- xiolxfvf rtocfx.; 9Xol;tif'. erii^ i-arii rrold-laocicjL'B sr'i^ lona/s 

■ ' ■ '■ ' '^ bos x^i' • - - t 

. , _....., ...;; 010^7 nC 

lo *nJtoq rrl otow J-l 11 

.:j* 1c ) Off* 10 orfT .ovl-' o<J blssow 

I' , united State-. Patent Office 

' Exl:arteBo;^r FortilUorCon^^any. ^ 

Trar^ie ^arx f^r?otanh Pertllincr. 
.• -l,a'lo-- ft- -n.-.r.t.I^. rtlod pot. 4.M07. UO. S2.0«. 

:,-:! LccU::?^ for a^^pltcant. 

-•— • ■ ■• . • ■■ - ___«_ 

; fertllir--r, is afflr.n«d. 

Jan. 15,10CO. 

. ~ -. -. r-' 

A. P. Greeley, 

Ao t ir-s C c: r^u i s 3 i j > -- ^- • 



^on-ic ,„«,^, ^^,^^, 






Doc. 23, 1897. 

rj, Kf f '^~- ^ f 



— — 

Ex parte Clarlc-Jewoll-Wells Co, 

— o— 

Trade-Mark for Grocer ios. 


Application for registration filed October 9, 1897. 

— O — 

!^. J. ?. Beale for Applicant. 

— o — 
This is a petition taken from the action of the examiner 
of trade-narks requiring the applicant to limit the goods to 
which his mark is applied to one class. 

It Is stated In the application that the mark has been 
applied to groceries and the particular goods said to be includ- 
ed in that class are - "canned goods ^ flour, tobacco, cigars, 
dried fruit, condiments, farinaceous foods, flavoring extracts, 
coffee, and lard, hams, bacon and canned beef." The examiner 
states that If so many different kinds of goods are allowed to 
be covered by one registration, confusion in the office classi- 
fication T7ill result. Under the statute the office should not 

.aoiTJO TiiaTAq: ssTAia asrirru 

.oO aXXoW-IIeweL-JliBXO ojifiq; xH 
— — 
.aoii90oi0 101 jCiBM-e^BiT 

.VGOI ,6 tecfoJ'oO fjoXll rroi^Bi^Elsei iCi nolJ-fiOJtX.iqA 

— o — 

»taBOtL:[qA lol bLbbQ. ."i .1. ,i:i 
— o — 
lonlniBXB Qrld- 1o aoltOB Qcli ntoil xxoXfid- noJt^lJ'oq s at elrfT 

oc^ aX)Ooa eAi itmlL oi iaaotLqqB Qrli anlilirpert aXiBn-afcS': 

»a36Xo arro oJ' betlqqs at }['z&m alrf r 

Rsetf MKf *cfiffl arfv^ d-firfd- rtottBolLqqB ocii n.t betsta at &I 

"baloczt p>cf Ovf f)l«w F-r-on-' ■rf^LiJoft'zsq orit brtB aeltoooia o;t- SoJ 

^aiBslo jOooBrfoJ^ jixxoX'i ,afcooa fcennfio" - etfi aesXo ^Btit r 

,a*oBid'xo •anlnovBXl jafiool ai/oeoBfriiBT: ,e*nonLtf>noo ,^lml f 

toaliuBxa QffT " .loocf f>onrtflO JbnB rrooBQ' ^auiBri ,f)ifiX JbnB ,8* 

ocf JbewoXlB ft«xB 8l>oos 10 afcfiJtX tneteJItb ^nBrn os tJt ^Brii as 

-laeslo c)oi:Tt'io Qrid- rrl nolaj/inoo ,aolc^B'xi•al301 eno XQ -bstovc 

tor tLvocic. ^otTto Qiii eSuicin erf J' lobctfj ,&Lubbi Lltrr noti 



register a mark v;hlch has been previously registered to some 
other applioant for the sane class of goods, and in order to pro- 
vent this duplication in registration, it is necessary that the 
office observe some form of classification. 

The petitioner urges that there is no authority of law 
for the requirement of division in trade~mark applications to 
conform to the office classification and cites in support of his 
position ox parte Silvers. G7 O.G. , 811. 

Office classification of tradennarlcs is necessary in or- 
der to determine whether or not a trade-mark presented for regis- 
tration has been before registered, and it is desirable for the 
purposes of such classification that a trade-mark be registered 
only for a particular class of goods. Yet there is not the ne- 
cessity for requiring that the application for registration bo so 
restricted that exists for restricting an application for patent 
to a single invention. But one trade-mark may be covered by a 
single registration, but however desirable it may be, the office 
Is not TTarrantod in requiring that the trade-mark be registered 
for but one class of goods. To require that a trade-marS: "be reg- 
istered for each class of goods with which it la used - in the 
present case to require that the trade-mark be registered separ- 
ately for five different classes of goods at an expense of five 
fees - would be a most onerous requirement. 

"Oiq ot tobto at bnB ,8J!>oo3 lo aaslo ejOBe etlt tol trmotlqqB rtorfio 
Bffi^ ^sxld- -^BsseQen qI il ^aot^B'iiBt^Qt nJt noti&olLqub Bliii inev 


WBl lo Y^-ttoriJrm ore aJt e^erf^ *sril aoaijj- toftold-lJ^oq erfT 
oit anoliBolLqqtt iisct-^bBti at aotatvtb lo ^nemBilirpert esii 10^ 
Eirf 10 itcqquB nl qo*1o fcrrfi nol^BolUBBBlo ooil'io erlt oi imCinoo 

,118 ,,0.0 VO ,aiovI18 et'isq zo ciotilBoq 

-to nl Tj^BBBOOQ-T 2I a:tTBH-^fcBt:t 10 nolJfiol'ilacBlo nolllO 

-aJtasi tol bo&n98&tq Ji-s. :- ::biJ- b J-ort 10 lorfisrlvr o«Jtirrr©;^ef> oi isA 

orit tol oIcfBflsQfc bI il fcrrs ffconeialsoT orrolocf rreed SBxf rrolifiii 

Zso'xdiaiao'x ocT :2['XB»-^Brti £ ifi/li nolisomaeBlo i1«jj8 ^ •••otrxirq 

-*oii Offi ion r?l eTOrfi isY .26003 ^o aafilo tBli/oJ^iteq g lol -rjlno 

Od o<J aoiifitialsort lol fioli£oJtI<iq:6 oxii iBxii anliiirpcr to'i yilaaao 

irroiB(? tol rrolisoflo-cTB rrs aaiioliiaot 'xol: aistxn isrfi fieioltiEBi 

fi yq' Joeisvoo o- ^Iiam-aftBii one ii/a .noiinovrii elgrria b oi 

oolllo orfi ,9cf x^^ i-t oIcfBtipr** i-nvm^orf iircf .rrcliAti 8/301 el^ia 

Jbo-siaislsoi acT X'tBra-©f>«TC* orfi ierfi anliJtx/pOT ni LoinBiiB^ ion ai 

-go^ ocT '!PTBI!I-nJ^^s'^i b iBffi oiluporr cT .aAoof, "io ecBlo sno ii/tf lot 

erli nl - i^eaj:/ al il xiolrfw riilw al>003 "io asBlo rfoso 10I Jborroiai 

-iBcroc fcf»i9iRl3|0^ »cf :iIiBffl-o&cr!:i orfi isrii silirnn-r oi -^jsn irroEOtq 

ovtl Jo earroqxB hb ifi aJbooa lo ooaaBlo ineiollli) ovl's toI ^loiB 

♦ inonioilnpoi airoifino iaorr s ocf M;_rOT: - rsol: 

The applicant should, however, be required to state for 
eaoh olass of goods the length of tlmo for whioh the trade-marX 
has iDeen used for that class of goods. 

Subooot to this requlrcntient the petition is granted. 

(Signed) A. P. Greeley, 

Acting CoKEiissionor, 

Tiov Assistant Comsissioner. 

February 24, 1090. 

,. e.. 0. ....o. .. .ove.o. .M.. ..... e. 


l-Iaroh 4, 1808. 

not be nt- 

n.d.f /^ ^1' 

^-to" « ri!^t b/ir the r«r-lnH 




Ex parte ICrucius Brothers. 

tlie wo 


Trade-IIark for Cutlery. 

-, ^ ,_ ;;: 18 w»ii 

no 3 3:;:.;^ ;ol. J3, page o31. 

"^ ^^ d or de- 
sired by barb©r«, or fr; viptf^d rrr . -.-^r- 
Applioation for recistration filed October 2, 1097, ITo,54,.577. 

« h^j 1«f to 1i>ie I: 

llessrs. ^i^xxm « Company for applioants. 

This l3 an appeal from the action of the examiner of 
trado-iaarkB refusing registration of an alleged trade-narR for 
razors, which is stated to consist essentially of the words 
"Barbers llodol*. 

The grounds of objection by the exasainer are, first, a 
prevloLisly registered trade-nark for razors, consisting of the 
words "Barbers Favorite"; and, sooond, that the words are de- 
script ive and advertising in character, 

^ The prior nark referred to in the first objection was 
registered sraae twelve years ago. Appellants inrjint that the 

,Ii,2,I .8Qa£ ,^ riotB.: 

.a-rari^oia swlnirsJi o^ ^ xsg; za 

.TioX^^^^ tol ^iBM-obBiT 

.ISS esBq fSr 

,itOU 1*9*1 

.Wis, *^ ,011 ,VQSl ,S tsdo^oO bQll'J nol;tBT*ai39t ^o1 notiBctZqqk 

••tOscJtIqqB 10*1 ynBcproO * aasM. .eiaeaM 

lo -roniffaBxo otii 1o ttoiiOB orf* wonl iBoqqB as ol j;JixfT 
« j^Btl't jOiiB T^rtlriBXO Off.* xci xxoii-oe>ttfo 1o 8£nxrci3 ortT 


words "Barbers Favorite" should not bar the registry of the words 
"Barbers Model", and I an inclined to agree with them. It will 
not be necessary tp determine that question, nor to consider the 
correctness of the action of the office in heretofore registering 
the words which constitute the prior mark, for the reason that I 
am of the opinion that the second ground of objection is well 
taken. The words "Barbers Model" are descriptive, In that they 
convey the idea that razors so marked are a form adopted or de- 
sired by barbers, or specially adapted for their use. If not, 
the use of these words is deceptive, in that they would convey 
such a belief to the Intending purchaser, and registry should 
therefore be refused. 

Were appftliants seeking to register the word "Model" 
alone, it would be plainly objectionable, coming within the line 
of reasons heretofore found fatal to the registry of the word 
"Standard" for furniture, and coupling the word with the word 
■Barbers" does not take it outside the objection any more than 
would have been the case had the word "Barbers" been employed 
with the word "Standard" as a mark for furniture. 

The alleged mark is of a recent adoption, and the record 
shows no reason for violating the well-settled rules as to the 
class of words constituting registrable trade-marks. It being 

aMow Off^ lo ^^^J■ei391 sdt iscf ^on LIxxoxfn "nJ-liovB^ HtscfiBS" ef)'iow 

IIlw J'l ,mer[;t' rf^lw oeigB od- fioriiloni cis I beta ,"Ioi>oJt artecfisa" 

9rf;t leibJtafToo oi ton ,aoiJ-af»jjp J-BriJ^ orrlfins^efc oi Y'^seaeoerr ecf i-orr 

jBlioJ-Blaet oiolo^eisri nl eolllo erii lo noiJ-oB arid- 1o SGand'osiioo 

I j-jsrid' nosaei oil* lol ,:?[iBm lOtiq ocii eJ-irii J^efioo riolrfw af>iow erf* 

Il9w 8l nol*o9tcro "io f>xixroi3 finoooe arid' itBxf* noJtnlqo orid- 1o ms 

Y»rf* d'Brid nl ,8vJ:dqlioasfi ©ib "IsfjoM eiecfir^a" afctow exfT ,ae^* 

-eL to Le-tqoJbB nnol b sib fieXisin oa 8^osB1 d^Brid- aeJbl erfd- y^vctoo 

^iort II ,981/ ilorid lO'i Jboi'qBbB YllBloeqa to ,8i9cfiBtf ycf feQtla 

^evnoo fcluow Y^d* tBn'd' nt ,ovliqoo9Jb al aAiow ecorid" to qbu edt 

Jblx/oriB ■rrd'alae^ bos ,i9a«rfeij:/q anJtfjned-nl 9rii od^ "iallacf b rioxra 

.Jbsairtoi OCT oiol9n9rfd 

•leJboM* fciow arid- nad^elaoi oi 3frl3te98 aJrcBfifiqnqrB oieW 

•all orli nlri*lw snlmoo ,9lcffiiioJtd^oeta'o ylnlBlq ocf Jblxrow d-1 ^qiioIb 

fsnow axfd- 1o Yi-i^slaet erid- od- tuiBli tanol Qtotoioteci arroRP'"^'' ">© 

btov Grid' ffdiw briow arid' anJtlqixoo JbfiB , e'si/d-lnif/i 10^ «'i>iB£>fisd-c" 

fDBrid- erroni -^b nold-oetcro arid afclad-x/o dl aXsd^ don eaofi "arrecfiBa" 

fioYOlJEta £t99cf "a^ocf«xfi3" Jbiow arid' fisri aaBo arid- rceecf avsri f>Xirow 

.eniriianuT: lOl JtiflBi b a* ■fctBfcrrad'B" £>-roTr ©rfd^ rfd^lw 

Jbiooert ^rid- fcns ,noi*qof)B inoan b Io ai Xtbhi fiosollfi erfT 

9/fd- od a« aelxrr beld^d-aa-XIriw erf* anld-alolv 10^ noBBei on aworfa 
arclecf tl .eXiBn-oJbBid' elcTBid^alaai saldudldanoo afciow lo aefilo 


elementary that the purpose of a trade-mark is to denote the 
origin of the goods upon which It is used, it seems strange 
that manufacturers should continue to adopt, and attempt to mo- 
nopolize, words which either oonve?/ an idea of the characterist- 
ics of or purposes to which the article is adapted, or which are 
deceptive and misleading. 

For the reasons stated, the aotion of the examiner of 
trade-^arks is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. ?I. Duell, 

March 7, 1898. 

oSTDsrri'B aimooa J-l ,I>oai/ st il rfoirfv?- rroc[j:/ aIioc3 erfd- Ito rrlaJtn 

-OCT 0^ tqcmiia fcrrc ,;Jq:o£)S o.+ (^xrci^nco Jbljj-orfa BtQintoBluTtBsa tati 

~&attQtt>BtBtin edi to sett rrs YQvnoc ^9ri;tl^ rfoirfw af>tow ,eslIoqo 

OTS ffoiifw 10 ,Jbo*cr56jB eJt olold-iiS sriJ^ rfolriv o;t aeeoq^tjjq; 10 ^0 so 

.3nl£)B9l8liii Jbnfi 9vJ:;*'q:909 
10 tenimBXB 9ti& Jo noiios erii ^beiBts cnoaBei oAi lol 

.f.ecril'ilB ai G^Bin-ofeBi 

,Il9jjG .H .0 (i)9n3Jt2) 

.8G8I ,V 


ya :>2, 1808. " ^ ■ W " ^ iJ 

^ ws «f 


Ex parte The Caplt-il City Dairy Coiroeaiy. 

Trftde-iiark for Oleoiiargarir.e. 

"'Q^-^^flSBcordea^ Vo 1 . OS , p . 382. ) '*^ 

Petition. _ 

c ; t" 

ApplioatiQft.-i'ot re^tartyatton fflea-HarcK V^- 1836,116; ^1,000. 

lTeoB"^s. PinoKol & Finokel for ap~lioant. 

rfloe er .-, p^^nn lttlr 

Applicant apiiaals frOH- the action of the exaniner of 

trado^inarks:, refUGin£fi-.the "rGgistrat'toii'-^oi'-lt'S' alleged trade-inark 

for, ■pleoiaargarine.,... -i'he nx&rX for v;hieh registry io nought con- 

3 i c t s of: th<5 jrord " Piiriiy , " ' 

'. v«o;iii-Jji«!i,£!xeKiincr- very properly rcjcoted the applloation for 

registry, stating that the r;ord boionga to a olass of 770rds 

rrhich are descriptivo or advertising in ch&ra^cter^ Uhile the 

vrord "Rxrity" is not an adject ivo in fonn, and ne.y not be com- 

nonly Oj.iployod to desoribo a quality, nevertheless it oannot bo 

sucoessfully denied that it has a suggestive meaning. If the 

vjord is used in a fancifiil sense, as contended by applicant's 

counsel, fien it certainly has a tendency to deceive the ordinary 

buyer. Jlino housewives out of ten, cr. ' -■ • rticlc; of food 

marlcod "Purity" , ^,'ould conclvidn that the word was \;aed to indi- 
O'tc a qiiality ^^^.:.::u;:. to bo po:.;...v:.,.;jod by 



.^nsqctoO ^ilsQ Y„+iO IbcMcibO oriT .oiis^ xS 

,800,is.gvi ,og€; . ' ' ■■- ■ ' '^ 

p <^p> p/; 

.crriBoil^-IciB lo-i lerlonl'-^ ■^o::!^ .a.^aa 

..._ ..orctntBze orfJ lo noicToB ori* moil alsaqqa in&ctLz^.^ 
-:too ^rfsx/on n^ Y^cfalsai rloiriv; -xol ;[tBm or' . :iir.3i5flro9lo i( 

10^: noio*.:,on.i:r3 on-J i)9CfoftC«-£ vl'xoqo-tq Y1S^ tsxo oriT 

aft-xow lo asfilo k oi 231:0. ^ j'-'^- ■ " ''•^' 

-.ntc nc firm ,nrxo' .oo{,£>b ..-> - 

orrn^n - . .oXerT^tio'. . -tilBirp s ocfltr : o-olc[rro vln 

or(.: -I .3--xin:£orf evlcfsGBSJj ■ ' "'"'-'" '° 

a'cfrtsoil-vc. .oGbrrscffioo as ,oan?^a Lifltortf >axr ai ^t 

YiBniiiTio orij oviooojb 0* \;0ft9£>:r9ct b aisr? " ' • " 

^001 10 uLcii-i^ . ,vlwoax;off orciu - v 

Any inanufacturer of oleomargarine would ha.vaj:4i& right 
(if true) to mari: hirj T.n.-.u .o^-.-.- :. "i^^ure", and an article that 
is pure ic purity itselfl" 

!'■; attention Ifj o;:.11c:. to >...,.. ^-..^^ .,....., c-ho ^.^oro. in question 
has been heretofore rogisTered by the office ac a trade-mark for 
bread, mineral v/atcrs, l;3. Counsel for .:;•_ licant frankly admits 
that there' is no excuse for continuing a bad practice. In my 
opinion, the office erred.. ;in P:ermittir^ the registry of the Trrord 
in prior cases, and V7hile loath to disturb any well-settled" 
pxa<jti.ce^ ooT 4he,. ©fa ice, I shaliv not hesitate to do so when such 
prior practice is not in iiy opinion well founded in law. 

7iG:7if!-5g,.,,thc-vapp,J49§Ji§n^as I do, the action of the examiner 
in refusing registration is affirmed. 

( Gignedl.-.Gf ..liU-Duell , 


March 23, 1390. 


■ in In 

,-,^,,_,,-- l?.io orfJ "'i fieied-ais^'i Q'iOloiQ'r.Qri rroscT aisrf 

XPt :il .''-'^f.-fr- ' tiirriO'fico 'tol oairoxo on 3i o-rori^t J-erT* 

■.lAn-rrnrr vnn diJixiali) oi rfcfSQl- oiirfw fens ,aodio toliq nl 
riosjB oi a4^cM-,3ari.:.^on.XrlBriB I ,aoi'rio o:ii xo ooiJci^Tq 

.7;:! nf '^n^rrrrcl IIcot; moxniqo ^rf- nl d-orr ed fioI^C^.tq 'zottq 
lonirisxs on J xo hoxjob 8xi^ ,ob I as nolif^o.iIcIiIB; ortcT ^nxT/olV 

.&C)eaJ:'3:1fi ex rtoxJ-Bid'slBa's arfiei/iai nJ: 

.80GI ,r:r: rrr-rRM 


2-^" /^ R^eorded Vol. 63, P, 415, 
United states Patent orftce, ( 

.i*£ pa y t o Bsarviou Tooaoao Cosapuay, 

TrridG-MarX i*or GimlT. 


AjPliontlon .tiled liaroh 12^ 1007, Ko. 5o,17o» 

Mr, P. M.. noiigH foi" applloant. 

2]ii- ijj an a^-^^oal iVon tho decision of tht- espjiiln a- o." , rofualii^-.; to roglator Vne r/ord "rtKl" as a tr-adc— isnrJc 
for Eiiuif, 

Iii <j.i:T;::.;g-to ^ Lc.ndrotU, oX 0* •:. , IMl. the oja<^st1.ori nnclor 
coiiS I. Elevation wars ^7hot)ifa' a rod ba^; ir -iV/.v .:.,.w.i -.:, > ;;_ vKoa 
oould bt^ rc£ir-'t<jr«i ac a trade narl; foi' seed, "he aiitliorit-les 
on thf? c.-'jeotlon of the iioo of ooloro for trade-raarlcs ware fully 
revlowed, and It ??as held that neither tho oolor alon^ of a paol^.~ 
ace nor the oolor alone of an article of ooin;ieree oonld constitute 


a valid ti*ado-iitirh. t.-lth I'aia holdir.,^ I laily o, Ir x-ho 
sm.rf oii rhlc'i: tne f»ord i;; used oy appellant oe red» tiio --rord 
loscivlb ^ thf? color Qi tl;'5 ■■JUntT, a*:i fcilioiild «iierei'ore nor. 'oe 

Ai-peiiant^ jiov^^var, oCJUtcndG tiiai the vrord ii3eB not .ieflrio 
tiie o=Dlor 07: the SO'J^^ Oi' or tri-.> ptiokaso , "out t^mt il Is \i?3ed 
in an arbitrary efmr^s and slio-ald b& re-gi&t<;red. The answor 
to tMs is that If the word do not describe tho color of the 
goods, purchasers laight bo led to bollove that it aid, and ■srotxld 
therefore bo deceived, and for this r<^ason th?- word (Should not 
bo rogistorod. 

A v7ord to be? uaed as a trad^^-j-V-rX trnst obriotmly b'^ inGaning- 
less as applied to tVaPs =:ood!5, so as to be noither doncrlptivo 
noi' deooptivo^ nor ctticuiated to be either dss^riptivc or doeupt- 
Ive, 'Uhl'ii vTord is not of thai -slass and i-hovild not to r?5c:ister» 

Xh^^ di5,;i.^lon or ta'7 ex^aiinnr oi" trad'^-KarXs is aft'irnied. 

C, n. i)uell, 


April C, 1808. 




F3. Off. /^-l?- 

(Recorded Vol. 64, page 97) 
April 29, 1898. 

the M.H. 


s^ ay- 

and thjat Wtti®&. a^ '^-^ **• 

Ex parte Ervin a, Rjoe cpsipaiiy. 

Trado-ii^rk for iilnpe-Meat. 

Petition. .. 

Application for registration filed January 11, 1898. 

I3rvln A, Rlr>f» 0<HnpaTi3r pro se. 

Xt le the ifT."^ t5r.> 

'rfrtf •»<? 

thU Is an appeal froiR the action of the examiner of 
trade-marks refuslns registration of the phrase -Better than 
Mother's* as a trade-mark for minoe-meat. 

^ In view of the faot that appellants are prosecuting 
♦heir ^yrr. oase, I have carefully gone over the prooeftdings had 
during the pendency of the case and have given due weight to 
appellants' views as set forth in their various letters Mid the 
brief In answer to the examiner's statement. 

The question involved is simple and epsy of •olution: 
Ca^% Phrase "expressing quality 'oe tU valid EMhJe-M nf 

(ye sasq ,*© .lov 6eMoo6H) 

,H,M .8081 ,QS litqA. 

•aoiTio TiCiTAi ssncATa aariHU 

ooifl .A ill via ej-iBg xa 

IlimC ■•llfT inn X«Xfil>l*e£^««T 


.ae&I ,11 TC^MOlSAlb fieUfi rtol^Bttalaarc tHi itotiBotLqq^ 

.0^, <nci yyuvpaaO o^tK ,A ittvxsf 

li) lenliiisxe drf;r to aoX^oa etii vtgtti Zsoqqfi tsm at alrfT 

.ttum mrtlg 'z.o'i ;{'x£m~d£>Bi^ b as "a'lejf^oM 
;^;^JLM>e84mq e<%B B^ra»XI»qBpi itui^ itts'i '^'-'^ "^o welv al 

ort^ ftrtpt 'l»M*#»I ajTOi'iBv nlorf* ni rfd^-tol Ijaa aB awelv •ainBlIog^ 
:nol*irI©B lO Xl^ .&xib elqntta al fcevlovni ttottaoup oriT 

c. ^ 1 


trade-marli:? That the words "Better than Mother's" Is fsuoh a 
phrase is evident upon the faoe thereof. The words clearly isn^ 
port that the article so laarked is to \>e compared with some other 
KnoTm article, and that when so oompared will be round of supers 
ior quality. This is omphasised by the fact that anothoi' brand 
of lainoo-meat is upon the uarlwet, to which hss been applied the 
phrase "Lilce Jcother Used to Kalce," Purther proof of the state- 
ment that the phi^ase is intended to express quality is found In 
appellants* brief. It is there said: 

•'Better than Mother's* appeals distinctively to the 
pirevalent notion of univei^al progress and improveiiient in every 
direction and implies that modem methods and progressive ideas 
have been applied to mince meat and that our goods are n ot 
•nice Mother Used to Iteke,* but are indeed very different and 
decidedly improved.* 

It is an elementary principle of the law applicable to 

tradenaiarks , that a valid trade-«iark csmnot be predicated upon 

words or phrases expressing qtxality, (Browne On Trade-lilarks, 

section 29). Ho one can appropriate for his exclusive use words 

and phrases that all may use. Anyone dealing in minoo-i^'-eat can 

declare, if the statement be true, that hie product is better 

than anyone else's, be that other "Mother*, "Grandmother", or 

"Aunt. • 

The action of the examiner In refusing registration being 
correct, his ruling is affliroed. 

(Signed) C. H. Dwell, 
Coiumiss loner. 
Hay 4, 1898. 


-cii vi-sBelo abiow orfT .loeteri^ sobI orfj nocfi/ ouablve et eaxsiilq: 

loriitc Oflioa iCJ-i?r feoiBiMOO f^cf o* a J: l)3:*t«a oc oLoI&ib erf* J-Brid" *noq 

-^aqjja "io i>rLijoj; ©<J Iliw Lo-xacci^joc os iiextw d-firi;t Ijios jOloid'iB nvroxDf 

fcns'iJ -xoxtoorcS ;^«£U *o«l drfif Tjcf l>&sl'8Bff<!n© si slrfT .v;^iIfiup lol 

0114' boi-Iq-iB rtaocS asri riclrfw c^' ^MatiBTii orii aoqu ut iso^-oontsr lo 

id ijxiijo'i al x^ilBxrp aEOiq:x!i> oi &afc«odii2 ai: oa£.'xn(i oiit J-srf* tnem 

:fci*e OT:ort;t q1 il .Isiid '8;fnBXl9q<i8 

eif* od- -jXevld-onlialf) alBeqqs 'e'leitcfoM narfJ- •ted-J-oCT*'' 

'^Txeve rcl ^r:ei 3vo«qpKt iba» mmtcso-x? iBenevtan "U) notion toBlavQ'xq 

aBGbt eviaaetsofcr JM» (UMMfttn rrte&on ^Bxfd' aeiXqnit I>nB rxold-oeill) 

tqf[ 9t£ aboos tsjo &sd* brcB J-sem ftOftirt o4^ fieJtIqqB rr©ecf evBXl 

hns tne^etllb Y^ev i>eabftl ens iati \3SeM oJ- £>e8tJ leriifoM 9:^11 • 

• .f)9V0tqtDit TcX-beJbJtoasft 

o;f elcfsolXqc rt lo eXqloniicr vifsirtexraeX© n» el ;tl 

noqxr l>e^B6i£»«s9 ftcf &ormBO ^iBtrH-obBi^ £>1Xbv b ^BrfJ^ , a^fi ai-e ftOTJ* 

,4lili|B|N!«l)BrtT nO orm<yi€) ^yt^XBxrp SftXaaeicrxo aoas-ofci to afetow 

Bfjiow 9«fir •vi.'rr'iD'"^ e'ri ic7 eimXtqoiqqB xiso exto oH ,(©S noltoaa 

xzso i—i'F e t f ttw rrl srlleeA «fMiP^|ML ,oaxr -^jsn XXb &mtii BBeerriq Jbros aJt &oattn<z atit nuiJ feLnit sd *"immt^'hi 9At ^Jt ,8^BXoab 

•xo ,"'sod4^Offlfcii8i0" f^'MMMP' tori^o 4-6xf* ecT ,a'c :r:B nBri* 

icilatf iflHNPVPIlVM aalaiJle'r rxi i^rriinsze erf;}' 1o notioB BtCI 

.fcecrn-ttlB al :^lLtrt alrf ,i^oeTioo 

,xxi«a .H .0 (fconsia) 

.8G8X ,^ -^egH 

^S.H ^^ ^' 

* / (Recorded Vol. 64, page 129) 

May 10, 1898, -____.«_—--— ^■-^"'"""" m,h, 

^*T tfiTHi QU.Y.r.- UNITED STASHES PATENT OFPICm'^''^ . *^c„r.-r-,- .^;, ^ 

Ex parte Parker, Holmes and Corapaiiy, 

Trade-Mark for Poot-?/ear, 


Application for registration filed February 11, 1898, No, 55,117, 

Mesarfi. Maoleod, Calver & Randall for applicants, 

words f yr;a a p«irt '•>-■. 
Applloants are seeking to register a tradenraark tior ^ 
essential featiires of which are stated to be: 

"thf* representation of a shoe and the words 

♦The ;rreatec': v?-7.uc for tho noney/ :;ppf?arlns 
on scrolls placed adjacent to the said rsprenan- 
tation of a shoe." 

The oxsnlner has based his rofiisal to register the nark 
upon various grou-nds. He states that the synr&ol Is the r<=:piH>- 
sentr.tlon of applicants* goods, and Justly criticises the sent- 
ence Quoted aa part of the essential feattires of the mark, 
TJn this connection he cites two prior rogiste-^d raarks as era- 
bodying substantially the sane pictorial device. An e.-<rarainat Ion 
of thenc prior 'larks leads me to the conclusion that there are 

Stiff Ic lent dlfforences bf^tween applicants' mark and those al- 

'^ r. . 

rtedy registered to take then out of the ordli^ry rule that 
yotld be a basis for rnfuolng registration on the grmm'l that 

(esx 8aB<T ,^0 .lov E>6£)ioo9fl) 

J{J,1 ,8G8I ,01 X^U 

.aoxTfo fwoM^i 3aTAT8 asTimi 

.YJ^hhioo bfiB aemloH ^leiiB^ flJ^ificr xg 

,1«oW-i^o<yI nol :?£ifiM-e6aiT 


,?XI, as. oM, 8681, II yia flUCW I beltt nol;tsi*ajtaon lol noltfioJtlqcxA 

.atosoJtl^iqB io^ IlabrtBH A fevIsO ,I>&eX©«K .RTcsadlf 

:ecf o^ b'itBtn OTB rfolrfw Iro sfMMllMlk ta±ttmmB 

..... . -.,. .... ^^r^ '>ir-:;v -— ^— •• '---^« 

-4aa«i «tfl aeelolJJ^io Y-rJ"8j;ft brta ,ai>ooa * etnaoMfte!:^ to nol-iw « 
.XoxAS flrf# ^ JMWiMrt Ifi-ttneaae erii to itRq t£ fietoi; 

ctott»ntBmk9 .rrA .eolvob lalno^oJt? misb 9r(^ i^XlBl^iTB^tiMi Vill^cf 

MB pi-""'* .fflrt* rrolRiflorroe orf* o^ mi 8f>BeX Bjttarr toitq '* *cy 

-I* o»oriJf' b[tM Jlpai ' 'IfTTlB rroewtficr 8©orroTf>l^li> instof-yttii 

t»!f* ••mrorr:^ f^rf* ft© .rc^tBrrtslp,©'! r.rrfajj^n'i loT; claecf b oq LI.*w 


they were eltlier Identiqal therewitii or so nearly resemtled the 
other mark as to cause confusion or mistake In the mind of the 
pulDlic or to deceive piirchasors. I do not think that the oh;Jec- 
tlon taken to the oommon use of the syiBbol is well taken. 

I aia^ however, inclined to uphold the conclusion of the 
examiner for two reasons: first, that a trade-«iark should not 
be registered oontaijalng as an essential portion thereof words 
of an advertising character, employed by applicants and 
a^^te^-^obe an essential part of their nark; and, seoond, 
notwithstanding the statement that these words form a paart of 
the essential features of the mark, I do. iMi think that they do. 
The examiner has made no objection to the statement embraolng 
^I^jH^ ?.'Or^B as a part of the essential features, but I do not 
think that the statement of the applicants as to what are the 
essential features nskes them so, "biit that the essential features 
ar© really what lend character to the entire m?jrk and would be 
ap^.oonSjtdjBrod, Ex p arte Metropolitan Watch Company, 44 MS, Deo,, 

X do not think thaJt the office Is justified In registering 
trad#-n8g?ks which contain statements not well founded under the 
rule jus to what the essential features are. The ordinary observ-- 
er examining the alleged trade-mark would say that the essential 
jfjei^twres were the partially laced shoe, enoj^qsed by two ooncentrlo 
oij^les, and the words Parker, Holraee & Co., with the word 

«£t* i>elcfiii989i x^"^^!^^ <^^- 'SO ciHvTB'itttii I/poi-tiral)! leriJ-Jte oiew '^©xf* 

erf* ^o bntm eti& nJt e^lBfetm to rtoiau^oo saxjso oi' as ilisni nerfifo 

-oetcfo adl' ifiriJ" Ailri^ i-on ot I .QioaBrfoiixc[ evleoob oJ^ 10 olXcfirq 

.neXsi' Hew si Xocfnpca arf-t lo eay jtomiioo orf* q* neXs* nol* 

arfj- I0 rrolfexrionoo erii Morfqx/ oi^ fooniloxiJ: ,iovowor[ ^sm I 

Bjbiow loenarid^ rtol^oq Isltnesao rce as arrlalfiiicoo Loie^aJtaei ecT 

fcfOB B*XT60lX<3qB xcf l>e"^oIqii© ae ..doi/a ^iQioB'i&Ac anlalcfioviJB hb ^0 

,fir:oooa ,l>nB, ;:f'isflr tt^-'"- to #^js.l Is.t4||||Hii^;;||8 od Oo As^sJ-a 

lo d^fic[ fi 01-xol aJbiow eaeifcf Ja:!* J-rceme^sd'a aiiJ^ 3.'ill>xiB^atftlw*on 

,0ft x^^ ^lf$$i.J(llll/^^. ^Q^ >>•& I f^lfllMNll^^ eo*a;4'~~'" "'V'TdBBe erf;t 

SftJtOBicftaB *i-ieflX9*B*a orf* 0* .lO^^ooGcfo on obBm «?firf nonlmaxo, axfl 

^•0X1 Ob I >£fcf jaetytfia'^ XaidrxiiMRI 9iit lo 4"i«(i fi 3b T'^tc--' oaerf* 

erfi- wi£ od BB strtBotZqq^ luii to (^rpuwo^ste erf* tB[i& ^iciA 

B&'afffB€>J. isiJrroaas ^rf* ^srf* *ffrf ,or merft B3:<sn sQ'os&aQJ. XB/.+iieaae 

♦Kf ftXritm ftrre :i'ssm ©rlirro orf* o.t tatoB-rflrfo fcrrftX rf^aifw TJ'JC«Af »»?« 

9»eaS ,SM ^ .y:rtfiqtaoO rlo&eV rr9*iIoq"orJ-9M Q j'iB cr xa .fccftfeiarrco ca 

anliQ^faJtaot nl feeltl^eirt al floitto orf* *firi;t ?£rrtrfit .+orr • 
srit Tfifcra; fcefcrtnol iXer ton; B&ctQtmtBia trtBtnoo rioXffw ajfvpMMIiBT* 
-v^eatfo icxanJtfcio erfT .oib ae-uj-^Bel XbI^xsmwi erid^ iailir i>t *fc.^J^ 
XBZJtxxe««« aif# tBdt '<c£a AXx/ow :?{*cBffl-8i!>«^* £>eS8XX« ecit aaiixlmBy^c 
li,^n»0£fOo oir* ^cf feeeplono ,eoria bnoBl YJ^-^fi-tit'xfiq' arf^ J^^pw ^tiq||r|i 

Off* rf*tw ,.oO A atttfgw ,ieJi«B<J alMOw orf* fine. ^aeXcyio 


B&m<m^ plaoed between the two circles. On turning to the de- 
scription of the trade-mai*:, I find It stated: 

"Our trade-4aark consists of a representation of a man's 
shoe, partially lacod with the lace tied In ». ]>ow toot and sur- 
rounded by conoentrlo circles, between which are T>laoftd the 
words 'Parker, Hotoes & Company, Boston', with a star ate&iA end 
of the word * Boston', •» 

It seoms to mo that the essential features of the mark are 
set forth In the matter just quoted. Such mark I believe to be 
registrable, and it may be registered, so far as anything to the 
contrary Is shown by the rG;5ectlon and reasons therefor of the 

In Including the fliw name as a part of the essential fea- 
tures of the loark, I do not lose sight of the well-settled gen- 
eral rule that an ordinary surname cannot be appropriated as a 

tradenma^'k ay any one person as against others of the sane nam® 
who are using it for a legitimate purpose. Brown Chemical Co. 
V. Meyer, 139 U.S., 540, The courts would not hesitate to en- 
join a firm of the saiao nara*^ oarryiiig on the aaiae buHlnc^as frora 
placing upon th© laarkut, shoos boariiiig as a nark the neme of the 
fina arranged as shomi in tlio mark nov/ Bought to bo regiatored, 
When usGd In ooimoation with the shoe Plaoiii |ka shown in appii- 
oantfift mark. ■ 

If the applicants see fit to amend their statement as above 
indicated, the examiner is directed to allow the same, but as 


-9t eat oi anlrritrd- nO .aoXoilo oir* eri^ rreowd-ecf baoBlq. ,rto*teoa 

:bQ}Bia tl brttl 1 ^TLfiBm-obBii eriJ' lo rtot&qttOB 

R*ftBfrr 6 10 ffoJtiBd'rreBeiqei fi 1:o ad-aJtanoo ^iBOr-ebBti ixyO" 
-1X/R fiixs 4onX wocf b rtt bQff oobI B!ii rfd-Jtw booisi ^:IlBid''rj3ci ^eotia 
6iri.t ^^^^f)^.Xcr eiB ffolrfw neewrf'ecf ^^ aaXcxxlo ol'i;tnei)ffoo y^" l>©f>niro*i 
btm llfeie.rB isJ-a b ri>tiw ^ ' rro^aoS ^^piaqEnoO 5& aoniloR ^isii'iB^* aL-iow 

'^'"^ «.'rrot8o3« 6-iow eri;r lo 

etB Xism erfcf "io aetwJse'i Isli^ndaao eri* ,tflff* our od" anotvo ,/j. 

ecf 0* 9V9ll9cf I jIiBfli rioi/S .SgJ'Ojj'P d^sirj; tQt&aia d-ld- rci rf^fiol J^ea 

erf* -+ -TifrjYftB a* ifi^ oa jfie-rad^alaei ecf Y^^in i^l btts ^eldB^J-algeT: 

Off* ^o iol©Tr«rfd" anoaseT bns rtoliQ&lot otlt Tpcf xtwoifB aJt -^eitnot) 

"Belt ImtictBSBQ etit to itBq s as euiBrT antl 0rf;f grtlfcirXonl rrl 

-fioa fieli^i-ea-XXew ori;}- to iti^B eaoX ^orr of> I ,Jl*cBm eri4 "io ae*fll^ 
B as fie^siiqcnciqB acf tonfteo enrncncjja TtBrilbio ns Jari* bXxjrs: XBie 

©iHBn ©mse »rf^ ^o sneri^o d'anissB sb noarreg erro yob V- A-wu-^fcfi'Xvt 
.00 Xr.clfliSrfO rtnaZ .eeocrii/tr aianttJ'laeX s iCT i- ytiax; £>'f« oxfw 
-: ; ^iaiiami «0n ijxiww iij-xijoo otiZ .Oi-2 ,.u.u ■u&X ^'lO;;'!! ,v 

i^m' diam €MiU>r. tulj co :: -ijot 

jlje-xt. . oa oJ J \TOfi iiBc: jul^ nl fiwoxie E£ J: ;b iriil 

"■"^^rfs 8« *n*»f»J'B;fa tledt bnotoB od- j-11 eea adrtBolXqepi CMi# "SI 

Ml Jl««f ,6tai« •ft* woXXb o.t Ae^^odilf) ai lexilmBxa 9ri^ ,J!)Oi^B0Xj(fcl 


present ea, I do not thlnic that the essential features are cor- 
rectly set forth, and if correctly set forth, I do not think 
that the nark Is properly registrable, and the decision of tj» 
esaiainer is therefore affirmed. 

(Signed) c, H. Duell, 

i^y 11, 1898. 


^o„ o« .e^.BO. IB1...-0 e«* *««* *'*«-' "'^ "* ' •=^"^"^^^-'' 

,IXei«a .H .0 (i>ensi3) 

.8081 ,11 YBM 






(Recorded Vol, 64, page 156) 
May 12, 1898, -...— -^ j£^ jj^ 


Ex parte George S. Rail, 

Trade-Marlc for Medlolne, 

"■■??> ', 



Applloatlon for registration filed Nov, 24, 1897, No, 54,652. 
Mr. A, L. Jaokson for applicant, ^^ ■'- o, aa4 irtK*:' 

This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner re- 
fusing to register the words "Perfect Pace Paste", as a trade- 
mark for medical compounds. Applicant stastea in his specifica- 
tion that the compoimds comprised in the class upon which he uses 
the raarK are remedies for removing toleraishes, healing, and beau- 
tifying. '» H. 

The examiner has refused to register the marl: upon the 
grotmd that the phrase claimed is purely descriptive in charac- 
ter and incapable of exclusive appropriation; that the word 
"Perfect" is an adjective in common use in speech and for adver- 
tising ptirposes, and that the words "Pace Paste" merely indicate 
the form of the composition and its purpose. The position of the 
examiner seems to be well taXen, and applicant's brief does not 
answer the objection raised to the use of the «»Td "Perfect," 

(831 93«5 1^ -XoV LefciooeH) 
.H .M .8681 ,SI 1 


.IIbH .8 ©aioeO ed'tgcr xa 

,9xtloll>eM not 3£iBM-efcBiT 


.SS8,^3,ow jVesi ,J^S .voH Jbelil aolist&Bts&t iol aotisotli 

,iaBotZ(iqB lol rroaXofil .«! .A' 

-ot lerrXraBxe sriif lo rrolaloab erii^ nroi'i laeqqs rr« mX aJtrfT 

-QbB'xJ' B SB f^ettafl ootfl toolne*!" abiovr erfJ- leJ^alaei oi- anlj 

•Hsollioeqa aJtif al mmtmta icmotlqqk .afirmoqoioo iBoH^aoi nol ^' 

•MV ttf xfolifw noexx; aaBlo edi at J^eaJtiqinoo abmsoqjaoo otli iBsi& ni 

iWtJ Arts ^snllBorf ^aexfaloieXct aixivomei iol eetbrnmn ets ^CiBia i 

•d^ jBteqtr si^isfit er(J lei-alaiB^ o^ boBtfton aAif 'senlmBxo erm 

-OBiBrfo ni avid-qlioaab -^ttrcifq al l)OiiitBXo Baattlq etit ituit bi§n 

h u m Bdt t&tit ;nold'»ltqo'xqqfi eviaj/Ioxo lo &ia&qmoat bOB • 

-^■xevAB TO) bctB rfoeeqa nl gbu xmhbo at BvttoBlbB ob 9t ^ioelii 

mtBotbnt x-Co's®« •e^BBl dO0?* «biow edt iBtit bno ^meBoqrwq artli 

wit to nottteoq otfT .eaocrurq a;M b£iB rtolllaoqinoo o/f;^ lo anot t 

&ort aeofc "Isl-xcf »5'*f^RolIqqB ina ,neXB* Hew etf o* a«p e o -reirJtan 

".^oelrce^* ilkn^Mr erf* to eax/ orf* o* boelBt aottootdo orlt i©wi 

Applicant admits that the word "Paste" would he descriptive if 
applied to certain classes of articles, hut contends that it is 
not descriptive of the articles on which he uses it. I do not 
think that his argument is well founded, when he insists that 
the word "Paste* is understood "to mean a composition for uniting 
or sticking bodies together and holding them in close contact," 
This is altogether too narrow a definition to apply to the word. 
An ointment is or very often may be a paste, and when applicant 
admits that his 0(»ipo8ltlon *l8 a cream or oin-Unent and Is ap« 
plied by rubbing it in the slcln," he outs the grotmd frcan under 
his feet. 

In my opinion, the action of the examiner in refuslrig roglflF- 
try Is well founded, and it is therefore affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 

Coiamtss loner. 

May 16, 1898. 

IJ: QYtiqitoaob ecf blvov "ei-afil" btov ent tBsit atlata trtBotZqqk 

at J"i tBiit afirredrtoo J^ixtf ,aeloti*tB 1o aeaaalo niaiieo ot fioiXqqe 

^■orr Ob 1 ,tt aaexr eri xfoJtrlw rro aoIoid"tB srii^ lo Qvl^criioaoJb i-orr 

*«riJ ad^alanl eri neriw ^f>©6rt;jo'i I tew el taemssta alri ^sri* jtalrTd- 

inJt;JJ:nir lol noiJIaoqmoo b nsem o^" booiaiBbmr at "dJ-bb*!'* Mow •rfj- 

* ,iOBirtoo eeolo nl iro/fd" anlfclori bos lerf^eso* aelfcocf snJtioi^ta no 

•Aiov erft oJ^ 'cJtqrq;6 oJ- nold^tnllefe s woi7«n ooJ- •xaff*©30»M6 at alrfT 

IfiBolXqqs nofttr l>ftfi ^eiaaq b ed Y^n ne^'lo Tt87 no ei ^noactrclo ixA 

-qs at £>r[s drtoffitnio 10 time^o £ aJt* notitaoqsaoo atti istit aitsabB 

tebraj arrt ftflpcxs erf* 8*xxo «rf "^ciJtXa eri* fl:Jt tt anlcTcrin ^jcf fcellcf 

,J-9©'3t alrf 
■Srttpiftfn nt ie«Jta»x© ariJ' Jo aottt& orfi ,aoJtn!qo -^ nl 

.ftenrtJtYiB orcoTt©nex(4^ el Jl Me ^fiofcrmo^ 1 1 91? al vt* 

,llojja .H ,0 (fcansia) 

.doii «a^ <«ili 


■c t 

t\ (Recorded Vol, 64^ page ISJU^ 

May 17, 1898. ..---"^"" M. H. 


Bz parte George Calvert and Brother. 

Trade-Mark for Plug Totoaooo. 


Application for registration filed January 11, 1898, No.54,898, 

Messrf?. Munn & Company for applicant 3, 

The examiner of trade-raarlag has refuued to roglater aa a 
trade-mark for Plijg tobaooo a red rii^bon applied to said tobacco. 

Pot It loner 3 first sought to register the Words ••Silk aibbonf 
and when r*5jeoted upon two prior trade-iiiarks, oiie of iRhich was 
for the word "Silk" and the other for the word "iRiblsons^, aaonded 
their application and stated that the essential jfeatiire of their 
aarX was *k coiled plug of tobacco havine a rlobon passed between 
th« coils /thereof and its ends tied together." Registration 
still being refused, the drawing was cjanceled, al new one substi- 
tuted therefo|r, and the essential feature atatedlto be "a rod 
ribbon applicid to a plug of tobacco," \ 

TJpon an I' exarainat ion afid coxnparison of the t^oVd^rawings , It 
appears to.Me that they are so dissimilar that ihe si^^oond ought 


>me that they are so dissimilar tnat the gi^^oo 

(V3I 9SBq f^ .loV LeMooeH) 

.aorerao TMaiAq aaiATa aaTiHU 

•isrii-ota 6ns iievlBD eaioeO eJ'iBq x5 

.oooBcfoT 3trI9 ^Ci ^tiBM-efjBiT 


^6.0^ fOOQl flL uiWiiiT £>eli!t noJI^fitd^Bisd^ "xol rcolcTfioilcH^ 

.B^iiBolXq^B toit xna^GBi9 * xxotfl .cnaaaK 

.oooBcJoi fiiBB 0.+ bodlqqB rrocfcfii fio*r fi oooscfo* auXq; rco"* 3l«t«a*-efcjw;f 

lAtif^ I0 e^tix^Beli iBJtJ-neaae ocf^ tsrlt bQtB^B ba& nottBOllqqB it&rlt 
■Mir#8cf be&Bsq imHiit a ^ix^ad oocMt9& to aviq i)9lioo i^« MNT :ttam 

-l^adjia mc ma k «6«£eMi«K} saw as^va^ ttf# ^IhhhA^t S^lecf Hi (fa 

£01 3* Acf o^|Aei4/» VUi^Mt Xei^rxaacra lit tns ^ jLtW rf# t«l8f^ 
I ■.oooBcfot "io 3X;X<r fi O^ *otXqc[B noddXt 

^ifauo l>ftoo?j« diik Isrf* iBlttntaaib oe ens x^tit &Btit o/iK©* arB9<pm 

not to Tiave ho&n substit-uto'l for tlae^.flxst. and I caimot refrain 
from Galling attention to the fact that the statement as to th© 
length of use of the mark as originally filed Jiiaj^ or may not 
apply to the mark now sou^t to ,be registered. 1 do not think 
it good practice to permit siieh a change to be made in What is 
set forth as the essent ial feature of a trade-mark as might make 
the statement as to tlie period of use not apply to the n&w mark. 
The substitution haviiig been laade, however," ariS the aanendaent 
inserted, I will pass over that quest ioxu 

Passing to the merits of tho caa-^, T find that the ri&rTfi aa 
now presented stands rejected upon the prior registration of the 
word "HrDbons." The statement for5r:ir;g s part of the prior regis*- 
tered mark says, ir s-aLstance, tliat thfi mark may he printed upon 
a label and the label affixed to the tobacco, or the mfirk nay b^ 
printed upon th© article or the package oontainlrig It. 

While there is no physical resemblance bet-reen the word 
ribbong and a piece of ribbon, yet tlie probability of deceiving 
purchasers is so ereat that I thlrk the prior ^ark is a fair 
reference, Tobacco put upon the market under tho prior raark 
would, it setans to ine, becone known as "the ribbon brand", and 
tobacco placed upon the market under appllcantB* mark would raan- 
Ifostly become known as "tho ribbon brand,* A careful purchaser 
would not b© deceived, but the ordlnarj^ purchaser would be misled 

erf* oct^ as ^nemstaia oiW ^Brf;f ifo^l ©ri^ oi noiinfiiiB -i^XLlBO raott 

J-orr •^fici to "^Bd fiolll ■^XXsnlalic ae >:ibik oriu lo osi/ lo rf^siwl 

jCrriifcr .ton o£ I Jbre^eialain •<:(, o«^ «NlMPi» von XiAm etfcf ot \Z^yqh 

Bt *«rftr nl QfcBfli ©cT o^ ea«firff> '•"> lioire, ilanBq oi eolJ-OBiq £>ooa ^i 

eXBcr trisii-'i a« ^fiBjn-Q^Bti b to ot:x/J-jso1 X«li'xiaaa» oriJ- b£ fWtol: *e« 

^fMHimMi vU hrm fiovevcfC fOt^m necfo' dalvfltf fltl^xrvMlecIirB erf? 

,xtoi iJ'Bexip tBriJ' ifwf ._ IIJ:'?^ I ^fcei'toaftJ: 
»£ ■^t.B erli i»iii hriil I ,^b&o oiii to aJ-lioM tuii oi yrlasja^ 

r 'XOitT 7i^t to i-T^i 5 a't*"^o"l J'jTo.oFtBJ'B ortT " .axrocro'l?!" itov 

•cf vuM Xt/^w (»rrj' 10 jOooBdOo Brti- o* texJtIlB IocTb-" atii baa l&dul a 

»tJ: artinictnoo agB^oeq orf* 10 eZottiB orlt rtoqu beinltq 

biov Bi^f' fte^.^TjocT »oi tJOt tBolaxri'J on ai onerf* ellrfTv 

J8fTivJ:eoofc >o Y*^rtcf»»c-rcT:q , - f" "^t J» doelq b l>-rp tn'ioi.fcrt^ 

tt.'^t B ei ^TBr rtoJitii ertt XfiJrfJ^ I ^«rr* tijena oa al eT^aBrfoiirq 

•^TBOT TOliq rt<:f 'rr^r-frj; ;f a Trrcr, i.d'.i- rtoqxf tisq oeoacfoT ,ootiet!:»^ot 

fircB ,*Jbn«tcr irocTtfiT ftrfrf-* bb rnron.-r ec«>o«(f ^etrr o^ viiaea it ^bJ.iioyt 

bT.jror XtBin 'a*ftsoJtIq:c[fl tBbau de^ttan Qfii noqu beOBlq ooobcToJ' 

leaBrfeij/q Lxf^^'tno A ".iireicf frocra'tt nrT;?'' ha tnmt^ einooocr xX^eolx 
fiolR^OT nd sXxrow tonsffo'crjq >:rrBrriJbio odJ^ i'XKf ,j:>8vJt.9oab ocf .+orr X)Xi/ow 

and ajiy purehaser having heard of the rlhhon brandy upon inquli*- 
Ing for that brand, would take the one as soon as he would the 
other, I do not think that it is a wise policy for the ofTioe 
to register marks whioh in a^y event would tend to create oon- 

The action of the examiner is therefore affinned. 

(Signed) C, H, D^ell^ 


. iJ 

May 17, 1898, 

' 1: 





erli fclrrow erf bb rrooa rs ©rro erid" e^tBj bZirow ,finBicr d'srid' tol snJt 
eolYlo Qrid^ nol Yoi-Eoq* aaJtir b ax ji J-Brfi- Xnlrii- ton ol> I •norfi'O 
•*coo eJ-eeno od- fixted- fcluow i'nevs -^cub n± rfolrfw ayPrsm laJ'Blaert ot 


•AeorrlTls €»*io^e*t8rf;f ax teaimexB erf* "io rroftefi Offf 


\ ! 

L\ l/\ 

(Recorded Vol, 64, page 2JB2y 

May 18, 1890, '- M. II, 


ay parte Meriwether & C<»apany, 

Trade-Mark for Plw? of Tobaooo. 


Applloatlon for registration filed September 29, 1897, ^4,568. 

Mesflrs. c. Ai Snow & co. for applicants. 

BegliBtratlon haying loeen refused for the words "Peaoh 

Greenville*/ as a trade-marX for ping tobacco, applicants nave 


taken this/j appeal , and In an elaborate brief have sought to »how 
that the potion of the examiner was erroneous auM iheretare 

should hili revarsed on appeal* i 

/ \ 

It/ appears that the word •Peach" as a trade-^ark for plug 

tobaooib^ &c. , was registered in 1884^ based upon, ^iwste f roia 1&4&« 

Kegls/tratlosi has been refused on this inajrk and on th|e ground that 

/ '1 

%M /word »»GrOi«vilie* is geographical* ihai %im v&iak "Grooxt- 

/ 1 k 

7t;^le» is eeojgraphioal cannot be successfully qontrovertad, for 

th(9 reaaon th^ it appears iarora the United States oafficial Postal 

Guide that thtisre are saane thirty Post OaCf loss o£ t]aa^ iiarae in the 

United Statei^V "out I do not basa coy d«?oi»lon toe %hia oace ttpon 

(381 03«<I f^9 .XoV JbelbiooaH) 
,11 .IC J»8X ,81 TcaM 


.'Cf2-C<IciP0 A ^<?ri*8wiioM oJ-TSq 7C3^ 

.oct-ficfoT 10 awI'T tCi XtsM-ef>BiT 


JHoii^crt pimfai ,6S tocSHP^VftS ^elji aolssttaiiTKert tot aol^^nx.'.qqrA 

^rttftmee^i tism Booeatnie bbw teatsasiM q4# !• ooilM -•K^ ^^fif^^ 

,la»q(tB m> MMMM mT ^li/oifs 
^Iq so't il'auSr'&i>»'ii b bb "xioseq* Mow e>rt^ #«<U si^aQiiUX 
•a*ai «w^ 9Mi;4 <xo«tr J[>e«Ba ^^^61 nl betetBt^ei bsw ^.o& ^dMtB^oi 

-ixo©^* imov wit Janit .Xi5oirtq«iao&jj Bi <»0XIlvnn«MiD'' Mo^v tKiT 
aol ^SiBite.. ^0 YXXi/laQdooi/a ea ^ocnao iAOlAqBtfiBVR bI »eXv£lv 

•04 «1 Btmrt fMt lio •#•41x0 *90i xit^tU ©bob ei* ©tfjpfi* *6ri^ ef>itrij 
^i^f^ ttuBo lU^ ui tmlBioitib xfii ^BB(I ica ^ x ;^ijQ /■iJUQtBiQ jte^inu 

tho goograp'nlcal character of the word "Greonvillo, « 

Applicants seolc to reglater a cor^po-mid. raarX, and tho rule 
which should control In siiob oases Is well set rorth in BiiB'a & 
Co»^ 10 0«G,^ 1C4, in 9hloh the Coiinaissioner held that it was 

not "a safe practice to permit the registration of a oorapound 

trade-mark, one of wlnos© distlrieulshing features has already- 
been registered," 

A cursory examination of the decisions of this offioe rela>* 
tjve to the registration of tradtj-oarlcs shows many instances in 
which the ooirreH practice ahove referred zo has oeen followed* 
!fhe words "Crolden Star" were I'flfused registration hi vitm of a 
prior registration showing the word "Star*, and the representa- 
tion of a star. Registration of the words •Railway SimeKeeper" 
and the representation of a loeomotiv© was refused in view of 
the prior registration of the word "Railway* and of the faot 
that the word '♦TimeXeeper* was descriptive of the artiol4> to 
which the raarlc was applied. The word "Paff ** was refused regis- 
tration in view of the previously registered words "Opera Puff^ 
The words "ilaok Swan" were refused registration in view of the 
prior regi0tir«*lon of the word «Swan". -"^ 

It has alsip been held toy the oif ioe that ^.he word "Royal*' 
was infringed toy the use of the words "Royal Dutch. " It was 
stated In the case then under consideration that the word "Royal* 



8lxn oxf^ Aofi fAtiW Ariiiciipif fi rcaiBlliiK Ou Jujm a;fm;oiIqqA 
u*, xfaxi'9 rrJ: tittC^ ie^. ZL^x aJt ^iS^eBo n'ccrs r:i: Toi^-noo Li'iroxfe rinlrii 
IWBW tJ' tarfd- 6l9ri tarroisaiBniioO viU rioiifp ni ,i^OI ^,0,0 01 ^.oC 
fcxuroqmoo fi lo notiBttBt^Bt mit tteneq ot eoltOBtq else .6" i-on 

^ Jbei&iBt'SBt jC»8CI 

■^l6'x eojflto Blrf* to anolslcet erf^ "io i nt liiilliil -^oetxTO k 
at seonalarrJ: -^rxsoi eworfs sTCieaf-tkoBiJ ^o rroJt^si^olsei otf^ o^ evl;) 
•JbmroXxo'i. ii«k»q aari oj l>e'X'xele^ avocfB Boi&VBiq i6&vtoo tait aotxtfi 
m li mfl¥ 4A a9ii09$mSiBQ^ fceeirifti ©now ••tcb^B rto&loO" e&t^v njfl 
«4|itilMMiHpl eii^f f>jnfi ^"•xstt* ib'xov «|# anJtwoxie nol&BtiBXSO"- i«M| 
""xf i ttum^Mi g yjmJklBh- eb*xoYr m* T» mH^rtat^^B. .iBtV • ^c noil 
1K> weJtv 1x1 Jboarr^ert asir evJt wtomoool b ^ rioiJaiMHMlMI.^M^ MM 

-elso'x flwMffia ' i •«« "TmH" Miwr eUT «£eJ;Xcrq;s omr sfnam 9IS4 JCli iil 
.''■naU JH^qEC^" aijioir i>©iie^aJtstyr ^iairoiveiq eriJ- 'lo v»tv n± aoi^ftic 

• "rSBVc." btow ntU^lBD aol&amt9X^sfB»i rcoJttq 
.0-7 an.! ^wtt BollflW ««?♦ ^ftf hl9A rwetf OjBiJA asxl *I 
(.^Bw V I " ..liMl^ft Mt0V* «£>«£o« ofi^ ^o oar mM ttf ft^ol'CixtJ: e«« 
«fc^ twtii aoi&Btobtmtoo tabmt uttU aw Mt# nt fie^fid^i 


was the essential part of the trade-marJ:, Trhlle the rord "Dutoh" 
was merely descriptive. The rrordB "Old Taylor" -were ref^iised 
registration on the prior registration of the "vrord "Taylor." 
The vTorAs "Royal-Salted-Codf ish*, ^Ith hyphens l3etweer. the "vrords, 
were refused registration in view of the prior registration of 
the word "Royal." 

As I view it, if a call were made for "Potieli to^baooo," it 
could properly he filled hy handing the 0U3ton?.'?r the •Peach 
Greenville" brand. In other words, the pixrohaser using ordinary 
oautlon could easily be deceived. 

^'^ 8 3C pa r te Calre, 15 O.G. , /348, in which registration was 
refused of the words "BlacX J5wan*, the fJoHsSBslonei* thu;^ cor- 
rectly enunolatfjd the law a?? repeatedly hold "by the coi^rts rela- 
tive to thr class of purchasers to be protected against rais- 
leading trado-marks : 

"It has befin held that even If Wholesale btiyers are not 
misled, but retailors or consumers are, by the rosoHiblanoe 
^hlch one mark bears to another, the right of action e^clsts." 

He also said, citing various authorities: 

"And it has also been held that if a mark Is cploulated 
to mislead, even if no one has actually been deceived, the 
courts will praauae the resemblance to be not accidental, but 
intentional, and for the purpose of deception, and for this pur- 
pose the whole tradenaarX need not have been eo\int«rf elted. " 

This office should not give Its stairp of approval to a 

olass of tra^«-inarks, the use ot which has a tendency to tnlslead 


I0 rroltsiJaJts^T lOJtTi erf^ T-o weiv rrt noJtd'Bid'Bla®'! f>e8i/leT: ©tew 

".rsyoH" Mow erf J' 

^pninl --•* -•■'-- — ?asrforcifC[ ^-'* -'tow rrerfd'o ttl •bosTcf "olllvaeerrO 

.^?»vJ■«»o<»^ Rcf vXIbro bluoo noltvso 
9&m mtiii^ititSfi''. rf^.'^ffr rrf ^^R , .0.0 c?r ^eilBO >^v^tncr x o al 

-rror Fr«f* *!PO?fc^»B.>«nr!^f> erft ,*nMil X©«rfr« afttow orf^J- lo bn«irtrot 

-"'■ — --»"-•',»; fijf* -^'' 'r'^'H' •"■re^-^+f^^Q.y Pi^ ^mJ •Mf^t J5>o.tBj-ofOirre v.''-^:'^" 

-RJtin .■♦•art:''«5-y5 ?)0*o©^(«c[ ecf o# arroBftrfom;^ *t« Mutfe ftrf* ci- 9vJ;;f 

*on errs R-fft-^rcf elfiReroriW "^^ rrove ^Brfit M«ff rrftecf aBrf ^T" 

emtaldtmaeri eat xd ,(yifi aiomtsBzoo 10 siollBdorr i -elelrar 

*.R*Rl:xe noitor, *»:o .trtstt oricf ,ierf»tofin --" — ^r -^ -'rrr ■ ■'ri^r-' 

:ae^.ttto'f.tjcm ru/nltftv grrJtJ'f© .bis?, obIc oH 

J&e^fil/jor--^ -* ^r^iTT fi tJt #iRrr.+ .Mor< rtftficf oelt bmC ;fl fcccA" 

«{» ,. o«£) ixaetf "^i^jj^^oe 3£r; &ao (MT^Mf novo «JbA»XfiJ:iir o;^ 

♦tftf ,Ifi.trroJ>.tf»OB torr ©d o^ oorr«Xcrpi©RO^ 9ri* orareerrcr XXlw stitjoo 

-rtjuq aiffJ -xol fioA ^aottqaoot *to oeoqruq ailJ- no's A/I8 ^X«n' ':tf 

« e* X«rOTq«Ts to a** f^^f^ls tort blxicrin eotiJ.o nlrfT 


or deceive Vne public a-nd thus tahs a position antagonistic to 
well settled rulers of law. 

I ail clearly of the opinion that the rords should not be 
registered, and the action of the czaiainor refusing registra- 
tion Is afflnaed. 

(Signed) C. H. Dn*=Jll^ 

Kay 21, 1898. 

! / 

ot oJ^;t'si:noa«tfCJS .cxoii'isoc[ r ojiiio- axrrii- bets oiitiirv '^'^'■^ .->■., ^^*^^^ ..^_, 
-3's4'i2J:3«n a.Tlaii^e's ifAnirnaxo srfj lo xiol^Ofi eil* f>r£jB ^Jbeifttslas's 

.8981 «XS ^fltt 

May 25, 1898. (Reeoyeted Vol«64,p.220) M, H, 



Ex parte Kauftaann & Blaohe. 

Trade-Mark for Gin, 



Application for registration filed November 11, 1807, Ho.54,568. 

Mr, Prederlo 

!. Keefer for applicants. 

ApplAoants seek to register a trade-mark for gin, tHe 
essential ^laattire of which they state consists - 


"in thf» pictorial representation of a oat in a cxKJUohlng po- 
sition., three of Its legs resting on the groimd, €uid the 
to\xr,tm toeing in an elevated position, the whole being printed 
in gold on a red baokgrotmd. This has generally been ar- 
range/i as shown in the aooorapanying drawing, in which the 
oo3;^J3, excepting black and white, are omitted, and the words 
•Olia ilCora* inclosed in a border siirmount Ing the same, and the 
woria^Y*C0itfE»rateA Cordial Gin' appearing beneath the same," 

/The ^xitoiner has rejected the application upon a tradenaark 

for gin ?|ad other liquors. No. 15,521, registered May 29, 1088, 

the ess^\tlal feature of which is stated to consist "of the rep- 

reser^Ufion of a cat standing upon a barrel." 

i^1&scaralnatia8i of the registered mark shows the oat standing 
up^n a mrrel upon which are placed the words "Old Tom. " 

!Wi€ire are ^^fferenooa in the details, but the salient feature of 

j{ jn (0SS,5,:^8.IoV bBbtooBR) ♦W8I ,3SS y/. 

.aoiTio -TMaTAq aaTAia osetiiiu 

.erioBia A finsjrtliTBX eJ-isg xg 

•xttO lOlt ^ftBM-ebfiiT 


.sas^J^.oH «V60X , r r. mniMiiimll rn i r n rm r t n r 1 1 1 1 y\ i lot aolisotlqfik 

,BiaBotLqqB id letseK .a oliefiorrt: .iM 

- e;faJtanoo eJ^ei-a "^rf* xfolrfw "io eirrd-Be|st XbI *«••«• 

-OCT 3ftlrfoxroio £ nl i-BO b to sxolt&taeaQtqat IsitoioXq (Vrt* nl" 
B:li l)£iB fbraroi^ otlt no grtJtJ^aei agel ail lo eartrt* ^.YioiJ'iB 

j aa/i eixiT ,basjO'ts^o&<i bai b rro Jbi:o3 nl 

ewfc xfoirtw ni ^srilwsifi sn-t-scofiqnfoooB Off;^ nl ni»<&ff« as ]R«3ftBi 

sbiow e;{J l)ns fAe^f^Mino onm ^•itOw ba& XobIcT yclcTqptMt «4^^J^0() 

Brii bnR ^QimB orf^ snl^nxfOMHMi laftrcocf b nl MpoXo^ *(fto:i , AlO* 

" .ecxBe Oifd- riJ-Benacf sottM^VB 'rclO lalJitoO- ••^B'xcfoloo • 'kbiow 

aoMC-aCurc^ a noqir nol^BolIqegi titfd- ^e^oet^i a«f( rmnJrmiK^i dd^ 

,a08£ ,es x»M I>«l0*«ts©i ,IS3,3X.oH ,8ioxxplI rA J ffls tO» 

-«©*c art;^ io" Jalenoo o;^ ft«4M^« at rfolriw lo eixxJ-aal Xsli/nelsf'o art* 

"•Xe-flBHr.d-noqxf aalfcnB*8 i-ao » to s!U>ltk4^^^»^ 

yiOr ia^a iBO , oif^ .CMfitla jfSMB i^ ^a^ atyx «^^ ^ xtolctenlmsx^y^txA 

".«pT .bXO« 4rtK0ir Bttt AeojBXq arts rfo^iTw nioqw Z9VT^«i--» itoqtr 
•io axv**e^ 4n»tX«8 mSi 9m ,aXl«^a£i ^d^f nl moono^e-i^, «ijb ©-ariT 

tooth toeing the roproseiitatlon of a oat, the raindf differences 
aire Buoh as not to sAffioiently differentiate the two marks. 
Placed side toy side, the ordinary otoserver would not toe deceiv- 
ed, tout a purchaser ciilllng for the original brand would In nine 
oases out of ten as ireadlly t«&e the article hearing the marX 
now sought to toe registered, I do not think that he would pay 
any attention to the fact that the oat of the mark sought to toe 
i^gistered is printed In gold on a red. toaokgroond, nor would he. 
In my opinion, notice the atosenoe of the toarrel. 

The right© ( given toy the trade-ioark law of 1881 are very 
limited, ijas was stated toy the Court of Appeals of the District 
of Columtola in Elnafteln v. Sawhlll, 66 O.G, , 918i 

♦•IJhe right Is not created toy the federal government, 
and does not emtoate from it, as do patent rights, and all 
that! Coiigr^BS hcis sought to do is to provide a recording act 
of a| very limit ed character, the toetter to evidence the owner- 
shiJQ' of "Wic right; » 

The R»itont Office continually issues patents for inven- 
tions, th^/ibaking, ufee, or sale of "which would infringe upon 
prior pa^er^in^. 2his is lawfully and properly done, tout the relai- 
tion of 1 the Patent Office to the Issue of patents is very dif- 
fereiit Ifroni Xf^a relation to the registration of trade-^narlcs, 
A patejit is 'fgi*anted for a United %era^ wheroas a trado-«arlc lo 
praotiajalljp^iunilmitod as to tlrae, and while trade-^naaflts are ref^ 
Istei^'^by tke Patent Office In the first instance for thirty 

-vleoaft ecf drdrr bLsjOvr levrtoacfo x'tarrllj'ro erfff ,el>l8 vcT afcln feooBl^ 

oatn nl fili/ow Jbnsicf ljBrt*aJtio arfd- lo'i grLtXlBo leaarfOTr/q b i^ircf ,J^e 

jMbci eiriJ' arrliBecf oloJt irtB eirtJ' o:fe^ YlJtl>Be't aB neJ ^o &uq bgbso 

XR<i ^Xuow eri tsil:^ j(ntii& &oa oJb 1 *56rfo;t8Jts9i ocf o;t ;txl3i;oB won 

f^ti bluGw toa ^bm/oia^oscf Jbe^ s no fiXoa nl fie^J^nlnq ai be'xet8t^e*i 

•leiiBcf orid' to dooM^ &tt& Qolioa ^noinlqo tn nl 

Viev 91B I88I 1o wbX :?£tBnr-e£>iEni orf* rjcf nevia 8;^rf3J:'t erit 

tott&stia &tit to alBeofcfA lo J-iifoO ©rid" •\c<^ Jied-Bcfa asw afi fb&&tmit 

:8IG ,.0,0 30 ,IIiriwB8 .V nJLe;f|snia nl B^cfnttrXoO ^o 

^ -trtecirrjavos le'xOibo'i erfv^ ^cT beiseto ion c... ,. a^t eriT* 
IXi5 JE)n« ^RdTfsit JrreJ-Bq o6 mB ^it mn'^i otcuiBtaQ 4-on aeofi &ii» 
*0B s ^31 .8 iq o;f 8J: ofc-o* dxTauoa ^ad aa^snoD ,^fiif* 

"i^xiai^'c .....^ .- 

r ^^r^c>■w• rfofrfr ^ oIbb io ,a^ ^sBtlH^llllt t«nol* 

-"Bli'il'iii'rHilir ,6aof> V " ' m x^fsniffil ai BiiiS! ^fiocJyiq -XQltq 

-tlfe v^«v al KiTr^;l-Bcr ^,- i f,ri^ o* eoiTii *«©4^ o^lfW nol^ 


oI^f- . -: i oi 99timtiintUnjh^idoiicB'sq 


years ^ yet the law provides that «at axiy time daring the six 
months prior to the expiration of the term of thirty years, 
such registration may "be renewed, on the same terms and for a 
like period* « In ttiy opinion the office should not register 
^t^de-raarlcs which woiild "be held to "be an infringeraent upon prior 
registered or unregistered trade-marks* The Patent Office 
should not register trado-rcarlcs irtilch would have a tendency to 
mislead or deceive purchasers. The act of 1881 ^x:^r8ss3y pro- 
vides that the office shall not issue any trade-mark - 

•which Is identical with a registered or Icnown trade-marl^ 
owned "by another, and appropriate to the same class of raer- 
ohandlse, or which so nearly resemhles some other person's 
lawful trad€Maar}£ ac to bo ItlcGly to cause confusion or mis- 
take in the mind of the public or to deceive purchasers, « 

A cursor;;- oxaiaination of a few of the reported trade-mark 

s cases shows that the decisions of the courts are uniform in hold?- 

log tha^l the marks need not he Identical to constitute infringo- 

ment. in one Caao the plaint l:ff 3 sold their condensed milk In 

tins bearing! labels with the figure of a milkmaid with a modal 

on each sld^^ The defendants began to sell mlll^ in tins laboled 

with the mpxre of a miUaaan, with the arras of Switaerland In a 

medallioi)/ on either side. The defendants were enjoined. 

In akjther case the plaintiffs used the device of a hull's 

head, and a j^ though /there were points of difference between the 

brill's head t^ked b4 the plaintiffs and the one put out by the 

xla Qrf.t ^atti^ gatt vff& J^" tBili aQ6Jtv<wq wel erf* io-^ ^aisoY 

,arrs9^ iCd-iiffd; "io ana J- Qrii to noJt^Biicj3c© exf* o* tottq ertiaom 

: Jbns, Euifief emsp erfi' no ^fjewortoi ecf yfiin nottat&BlsQi rfoira 

•rsJ'Ris^'s ^^- feliJOffs -'^5^^'^c 9ff^t rcolni^o -^ nI •'♦JbolTf*'^ '^tCII 

loi-xcc rtoqx; Jrrsm&s-^li'ircl ns 9cf oJ bleA ecT JbXirow xloiriw eXism-afeflit 

PolT^O t^r©;^B*3 '^-^ ♦Batssw-efcsiJ- JberreJ-elaeimj- to bert9^Bts9^ 

0« :e,i- s 3V3ii ijlifcw rfCilitTr a^i£2rr-of>jBii- loi-aiaei ton I i 

-o^<I vlgesiqice I88I "^c ioe srfT ,eieeax(oiiro[ evJ:eoe£ 10 &«eX«4n 

:?!iBiJi-0f>Bii -Twor::'" -'■ '-" — ^■^-'■"-at b rW'lw iRotirtebt ■^'^ -fsirlv* 

-r£©n "io aaslo ?'.tk. -iqoicrq.G firts .torfcfor: B^mro 

a^rrotnoci tarf^^o esiOE aolcfrraae'x AjI-xBsit oa riolrfw 10 ^•aJ: 

-Rim to noiau^oo oairso oi \'XG:ltI oc' oi ?« j^rao-Qfcsid- Zsfz-^&l 

" •8n9aBrfoijj<i ©vJtepet^ Oo 10 olLduq erfd- ^o hnlm ©rfj -'• ^^tBt 

Xi^: orf* "io ^o^ £ !to n-olJ-firiJtiiisx© v«MWtro A 

-l>Xcrf r.i cpsottrtiT eri; e.tixroo ©xf* '^-^ ".cioieiOQfc exfcf iBtii' airoria aeaso 

-osffli^rri od'j:r(M.t8n:oo o^ iBoitrxoi:! ©cf ;fon Learr uirsm gi ' saJt 

rri Xlia fcearisfcr^- -'—''* «=5ic8 eY^:! ^ai^Icr 6|fJ 9rro al .ctrxsn 

lAbon B tl&txr blBwUiict b to oii/jil't eri^ ri*iw nIocf«l |j||p|p*oo axii* 

A#f©*5X 9nl& nl --Ilirr Ilea o^ rrB3©cf otnotnB'iQii orfT >l5ir rfoB© «o 


B .fti br iixrB lo aaiws ©iiv+ xfd-Jtw ^^UUfXlm b Ic j^v-^-^ip ^"'' t^^^^ 

^hr^crr^rn-Q Q,gfpff P^iCtBtCtQ'itib ftlfT .©fcJT ' -T.t.^f- -^f* ^^'OJtIlBf>©Cr 

r'XXtfcf B 'to ©oXvefc erf* ftotirr p'it :q e/jtf ©r 

f>rf* n»Hp|©(< o^upiB'mfc *to aJftiocT oT»if etexf^ ttRa9ilf^:s btiB ^ftB©^ 
ortiJ- xcf t«o Jt ©riJ- J&x:x cTli. . oOA t ubBBrL a'lXifo' 

defendant, the court granted an Injiinotion. I'he cousrt said: 

"It is not neoessary that the symbol, figure, or devioe 
used or printed and sold for use should be a fao-simtle or pre- 
cise copy of the original trade-iaark, or so close an imitation 
tliat the two cannot be distinfctiished except by an expert, or itpon 
a critical examination by one familiar with the genuine trade- 
raark. If the false Is only colorably different from the tnie. 
If the resemblance Is such as to deceive a purohaeei:* o* ordinary 
cautloni> or if it is calculated to deceive the carelcsfs and ttn- 
wary, and thus to Injure the sale of the goods of the proprietor 
of the trade-mark^ the injured party is entitled to relief** 

Colwan V. Crtaap, 70 H.Y, , 578, 

In another case where the plaintiff ecqployed the words 
•Charter Oak" and a sprig of oak iaaves, the defendant was en- 
joined, although omitting the sprig of leaves. 

The more fact that the present applicants omit the barrel 
would^ under the latter oaae, lead to the grant of an injunction 
against the use of their mark, 

The books stve replete with similar oases, but it is un- 
necessary to add to those already cited, 

Tftie action of the examiner In refusing registration is af- 

' (Signed) C. H. Doell, 

! \ 

^ Cammiss loner. 

May 26, 1898. 

iblse itiioo &ti'£ ,aotiomstni: as betnB'ts ^ix/oo eifcf ftciBbneleb 

oolvoft TO ^ercoall ,Iocfnrva Biii tstii Ytfiaaaoort ^on at &!* 

-oiq to r»Ilg ft8- pfl'^ fi ed fili/o/lB 08U- Tol I)l0R 5rr£ hoirtiiq 10 Jbeaxr 

notd-BJlflit fif? eaoXo oe to fJltBrn-oiiBit iBxiJtslto erid- J.o vqoo eeio 

rtoqir to ^d-teqxe riB -^ .|q:eox9 AerfBli.Tinid'Ri'fi ocf d-oorcBc orf* J'Sff* 

•*«6fit^ QiitfMMi ^^^ xfj'lw tslllxiff;'! arro "^ notimttmEXG Ito b 

>to % 6 sviooefc oj 8fi ffoira ai sorrsl t <>f{^ Itl 

-ruf l>rr v>tBO ^rft ovtaoefc o;^ J&etiJiuoXBO el tX "- j&o 

to^eltqOTiq T.riJ lo iMMi <■* ^0 ^^^^^a ©rf* otirfcrdt o^ aintJ- i>ri« f^tsv 

"."^r' ■"■ •■ '^•' '■--f*^tiw» «1 ^:ttpq, betrr^^n-t. r^di ,?[tiB.'3-"e£)Bt.t erf;? "Jio 

t boxoLaroB TlloKtrvIq ijit^lliiufii A8BC terl-torrs nl 

-fie SB JHHM^ «n^ yBevftaT jtoo lo sttqa & f>nB "XbO ta^BifO* 

.ROVBel "io : fJ^QCtlot 

JMHiM' eri.t tiflK) BtJiWflarqB c --' .vro- or*'* d-.P5tf>t d-Of**^ rrrom QiiT 
notiomitni: rtR lo trasts ertJ- oJ- liBftX ^-saBO toJ-J-bX ojrf.+ to&xiir ^ftJirow 

-<axr «1 ;)-X ^ird f^iMMW isltrnXfi tiitrf siftlqer atA Rjtoccr erfT 

•Addrfo yf)B9tre eeorfif od- .' ' y»tr,^,ueoea 

'^im ai ffoitftt^alset gliiMtet ni tfl«iiM|lli» M» lo noi^OB Qiffl: 

fiXeoa .H .0 (j^QOftiB} 






(Reoorded Vol. 64, page 329). 


Ex parte T h e Hoxall Cleaner Co. 
Trade-MarK for a Sat)onaceous Compound, 



Application for registration filed Pel^ruarj^ l,i 1390, Tio. 55,040. 

Mr. C. P. W. Dassler for applicant. 

Section S of the Trade-JJark Act of March b, 1881, under 

■which registration is sought, expressly states (i;.hat "no alleged 

) '■■'., 
travie-raark shall ise registered which is.'i.^erely the nsae 

of the applicant.* 

The tradOHaarX here songht to be registered rjils ih© sub- 
stantial part of applicant's name, and therefore,/ aIbi ray opinion, 
is not registrable. As stated by rae in ex parte t, .fU (»ilsofn 
Company, decided -June 14, 1898, the fact that the -w&rds "Koxall 
Cleaner* aro not the full nane of the corporatiw^i^ but onllf a 
portion of It, is to my mind tramaterlal. ^ 

The petition is denied, 3 

( Slgned).>erf H. 1^11 ♦ 
e 17. 1898. ^,.«.....__ ^ Cofciis3lon\pr 

.(GS5 B:^q ,N5 .loV bebrooBK) 


•xafefirr ^XSax ,f/ rforcBll lo *oA X-rsM-afeBiT erfi l:o S nol^ooB 

ii Qiii vXertoiT ai rloirTw fcoioi-aisei ocf IXsrfa XtAflHttftMl 

"•ittMiX4«i •d4' to 

-cfi/R arf# aH": Jbe^e^ala^rc ecf c^ ^x^ioa 9*terf ifr— afin'rt erfT 
,nolrtt<ro -^ nJ/ ; . ©lote^orTtt fcn« .aann a'*aBoJ:Xqq» T:o ;^t«<i X«Jtt««#« 

xzoaX^{) 4^: ^'^ MSt^^-SSi rtt mi xfi keiaiB nk ,9X*rc;faia<n toa at 
^^^■■bW* a4*i'|l)iw Qtit J^Bff^ *OB!t err* ,0G8X ,*X emi^ Jb9l)Xoafc ,YftB<!3JoO 


« W^ #M ^J:?Wi4awo<rtoo orf* to omwr XXu^ erf^ tort frsn •"terrBoIO 
y / V .iBliatBjaKt Anlin ^w o* al ,J^Jt 1o nol^ioi 

^ I [ ' / ^ .l>eJtrtei> al aol&ttoq ortT 

jBAor t*r orrrr'L 

Jiine 2, 1898. (Recorded Vol, 64, Bgige S44). M.K. 

UiriT3i3) STATES PJ\TIIHT 01^ CS, /// // 

Ex parte J. M. & V, Well. 

Trade-Marl: for Leather and Loathor Goods, 


Application for registration fllod Ilovomloor 15^ 1S97, r^,583. 

Messrs. Barton & Brom for applicants. 

Applicants so-ught originally to register as a trade- 
raarX for skins and tanned leathers the word "Yucatan." 
Registration of that word having been refused "by the examiner 
OfYi tho ground that th« v/ord was ^eogi'apfelcally doeite' and 
Incapable of exclusive appropriation by any one, the applicants 
amended their applloatlwi and asked for the registry of the word 
"Yucatan within the described square figure^ as shown." 
The examiner having rejected the application as amended, appli- 
cants by f^tltion seek to review his aotlon. 

Whil^ admitting the recognized principle of law that geo- 
graphlcal/ terras are incapable of registration, applicants seek 
^o ©xoepil the word •Yucatan" from the general rixle. It ifs in- 
•tsted tliat beoa^^e they carry on their buslnesai at Chicago, ;■* 

.H^M .(*^ Q^Bl f^ .loV bebtoooK) .8^31 ,S em/t 

.onrr^o toseta'! ssetats ccmiitT 

.llsW .V -^ .:&• .i Qj-xaor xa 

.aAooO t^dtGoJ. biiB leAiBdiJ tol XiBM-afcB'rT 


•883,*a-^ .?03X ,SI 'rocfmovoll boliJ aottBf:t3i^ot tcU. rxotfi^oilqqA 

,ata&oi L^qB tol nworca * iso*T«a . :i 

, lOi-rlflisxa aiU x<I bQpsfi^rt ii©ecr anivari: fciaw iBdi lo rtol J-eitilstli 

Acts nvj: &^f. j » j i ift vXI.f^oiApwHOQ?! a«v B'xovr d:f* *flrf;J- jbraroig nff.+ rto 

'J:-i^<I9» rMMMR afi riol#AOJtI<rqB 6ir{;f Jbo^toocerc snlrfttf <lMchMxe er(S 

•jxoid-os aiif velvet oi ^»fi aoIJ^ic'^oq y^^ a^frxBO 

Jteoa c;J-rrcoJtXqqi^ ,xiol;^«rtd"«is®^ ^0 exasqiioai ens tafiiioo Xijci/lqeia 
-«1 al 41 .oXjH Xarcanes ©^ oMft '•fiartaouY" fctov ort* p-qeoxo o4 
4ft iNMpftMfcf l|l«i£4 ao Y'X'x4ft ^ftrtd- el^uBOetf 4^4 i>e4-Qla 

Illinois, tJio word has lost its geographical significance wlien 
applied to leathers and skins of their manufacture, although 
hidea may constitute a principal export of. Yucatan. 

I do not think their position is tenatole. Any on© importing 
hides froia Yuoatan or purchasing hides exported from Yucatan 
would^ in my opinion, oe entitled to call or marls: slcins and 
tanned leathers having such origin by the name "Yucatan, « 

The question remaining to be considered is whether by plac- 
ing the word "Yucatan" within the (Ascribed square figure, as 
shown, applicants have disclosed a registrable trade-mark. 
The answer to the question seems to turn vLpon what is to be oon^ 
«idered the essential feature of the trade-mark. At. this time 
it is too well settled to aiiait of oonti-oversy, that tlie ef3B«fi>- 
tlal fo^txires of the trade-nark aro vhoso ^rhloh serve i:i vYiole 
or in part to distinguish the goods of the party by whosa such 
mark is adopted. iThe speoification as amended states: 

*jfho essential or distinguishing feature of our 

^arade-taark, xre consld-^r -o oe Vno rrord 'Yucatan* 
rithin the described square figure as shown." 

In /other words , it is the word "Yucatan* , and the arrange- 
ment of/ the word within the square figure Is a non-essential. 
Ab Yij/j£itan, taken oy itself, is not registtable, I do not thliflc 
itrff a made so by placing it within the squaW flgui». 
^-JigCie, Pamum £i Co., 18 O.G. , 412. In refbrring to that case 

affli'Tcoqittt eno ^ctlA. .sIcfBiX©^ ai noi^ieoq tleriJ^ XairiJ' d-orr ob I 

xiBd"BOx;Y fljoil b&iioqx& aQ^bixi ^iajteBrioi-x/o; 10 UBiBox/Y moil aetlri 

AaB aal:i£a jiCibqi to IXbo at J!>eX^lJfne 3c( ^notntqo -^ al ^bluo'K 

" .rifiifBOxrY" warn &sli \<i xiiaiao :iOisa siiivBri" aieriiaol JberuiB^ 

•jS«si!f--6£>£'£d^ elcffii^'eiaei; s ^aaoIcaiJi) evfirf aJ^rcAolIfils ,i!nvojcfti 

-rtoo ("/o' od- al ^Aifvr aaqfi inxji oi- mmMftt ittAimfmp ■■mUt' oi TVwenB orfT 

8«t;r alrfvt.M ..FfflrJ itiiiiirirt^ Ti inj^HMlIt iTilJtHWH «|[^ l>eta«jt« 

vc xiiBq or[J- lo €iMS ^^ tfKlflPdiailr o;f d<|X8«| icl 10 

rtxro ^o e«u;{fjMa BiEtifQlJJ3Rl^&l£ 10 iBl^noMW atCSf*' 

" TtiTniiiliiiUM « ifttj 


it was said in ez parte Adrianoe, Piatt 5: Co*, 20 O.G,, 1820, 

wlii(5h was a case vrtiero it ^^as lield that the name of a person, 

firm or oorporatton does not aoqulro an arbitrary eignifioance 

by asfsooiation with an otherwise valid trade-Buark, that: 

"In the oase of ex. Parte Pam-am « Co, , 18 O.G, , 412, 
I had occasion to hold that a geosraphlcal term acquired no 
arbitrary signifloance from assoolatlon with an arbitrary 
symbol; and iv. the present uase I feel oonn trained to hold, 
by p€«:'ity of reasoning, that the name of the person, flira, 
or oorporatior. does not acquire an arbitrary ^isnifioation 
by assoolatlon with an otherwic© valid trado-marX, and oanr- 
not therefore be Inoludod arj an oacontial feature of s\ich 
trado-^narlu This oonoluslon, I thiiik, will be found to be 
in hamiOTij'- \7ith the deoisl07:s of the courts so far as they 
are applicable to the subject.^ 

Prom principle and authority, I am constrained to hold 

that the trade^marK now sought to be rogistere<5 is not properly 

registrable, axid therefore the decision of the exaariiner Is 


(Signed) C, H. Duell, 

CoBfiml 88 loner. 

Jxme 14^ 1898, 


fOSiOi ,,0.0 OS , ,oD .-2. Siell. ^ecnBl*f3k e:f*t:HJ X9 rti £iJt«8 «SWr it 

ifr-jm ?;o ; l ryJtJnoacf; ro, au Jbo£x;ror:l ocf etoJorodi ices 


«8Cai ,:^i eno'G 

Jttne *fi"^.m, (Roeorded Vol. 64, Paso SGO) m. H, 


Bx ^artG PlttRbTirg-h Pixnip Company, 

Irade-MsrX foy Pamrjg, 

Pot It Ion. 

Applioation for resistratior) filed April le, 1827, iJo,55,427. 

Mr. Chas.-Jj. ciarkG and vfr. w^- l^. Corrl^-fOr applip^t- 

This Is a petition from the examiner's refusal to regis- 
ter as a trade-mark for pioaps the words »P-I-T-'i!-S-B-U-R-G-H 
P-U-M-P" arTjanged in letteiwj^Henated fom. The petitioner, 
the Pittsburg Puiflp Company, is a fim domloiled and doing lazi- 
ness in t3^ oity of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, As originally 
presented! applicant so-oght to register the words "PiUslmrsh 
Pump. " iho TTords ^oeing objectod to by the orfUo on tho eround 
t^t th^;y Trere geographioal and descrlptivo in thoiv natu-.-o. 
and heAJ3o not regist-ahle, an attonpt t^^ ncvrV^ by aiionc^ior:^ to 
ro£,lsl5,ej' the words in a npooif io form shoTO hy tho fao-Blmilo 
Which ac\oorapa2iied the application. As shown, the top and tootton 
lines of Uhe lettej^ foraed aros of circles, convex to each 
other. |, ^j©<^tion followed this action, TsfhereaT^on an amendment 

JI JX. (OOiS 03£*I ,:^0 ,Ioy SefcTOOOfl) .8031 ,V eOi.rT, 

.aoxTio ■xml1^<i sstats aaiiiiu 


^ugmH ic — ?.;6T:!r 


.I'Si'^oc.ok ^vaSX ,0X I/iilA feeXJtl -TOl-tBi^Blao^ to'i noiisoiXqijA 

■-'^TTtoO , .. ,rM bciS o^tfsin .'" .^^■s'^ .r?l 

x>n£ teXXolaa* anlt £ ai ^-^cnsqcBiDO 4MM 4fMtfaltl^ acU 
tXXfifiJtaJi'ro 8A •BJbnsvI'^tBmie? ,rf3tircrad-tJ:<I te -\c<^jU» ttt^ xiX aM« 

., .-. .oet^''^' srrii^'-" "^-^-^^ ••-■i'l »,qnaj*I 
jO'.-.jffJ'iift i.tortJ fll ovlJcritoBaft fcna laolifcrircjoos •rr<i\r v:^'iir(^+ *axfJ 

oD^tcid baB q9& erf* jinrorfa aA- *«)ii-BolXcr<ifi oriJ^ teiii8<jnoa^ rfolilw 
tigm» oi jWTxxod faeXotio 'io aota bmna etei&Bl er{j^'!lo aenXX 


■was filed consisting of a new drawing shoxylng the words as liy- 

phenated^ and the statoment ^ras amended sotttng forth that tlie 

essential feature "is the vrords P-I-T-T-S-B-U-H-G-H P-U-H-p, 

arranged in lotter-lTyP-'^-Gnated f orin. " Tnc. statement was also 

amended setting forth that the raarJc had been used «incG the 32<$ 

day of TJIarcsh, 1898, althon^h the application -was originally 

filed April IG, 1897. 

I do not thlTi3c this awendnont ought to have been received. 

As fstated hy me in ex "p^.rf- e Calvert tc Brother, 64 MS, Deo., 157: 

»I do not thirty it gaod practice to pem'^lt such a change 
to toe made In ^iThat is net forth as the essential featvtre of 
a trade-maA an Tntght raaSe the stateaaent as to the period of 

use not apply to the ne^r narlc*" 

In this case the period of use of the vi&rY as originally 
clateied wo^ild not apply to the nevr marX* TTowoVer, th* amenaBjent 

h^.vinc Troon Inserted, I Till pacn over that <g.uert lor and consider 
the case <rta its merits. — - *- 

On the merits as presented the Question 1» cleanr-oat. 
Briefly^! ^tated it is. Can geographical and descriptive words, 
not registrable in themselves as lawful trade-m,^-'3^B, "beoome 
registrable tgr arranging them in letiper-hyphenat^d fo3^t 
:• !'«n e?. ipArte Farnum & Co^, 10 Oj.G, , 412, the :q;ollo^7rlne; rul- 


Ings applioatoile to the present oaeei were "tade: '^ -f 

«!. Thaat as a r^ile geographical names cannot be allowed 

reglatratlpn as trado-raarka. \ j 

*2, T^Jiat before any geographical tT^ame can be said to be 
registrable 5 it Must clearly appealr that \ the place of that 


,?-]vi-U-*^t ^■T-0-5T-lT-(T-5-T-T-I-^ sbtor; cirii ct* oiuieiVX IsiJrrees© 
JbSiS orf* oonlK Jboa/r jreeci ABri ^xsirf nx'd- d-firtJ- /fd"x:o1t arrid-J-oc £>f>Jbrt©nic 

.VC8X ,01 IlicrA Jboltl 
:V3X , .DoQ ,31! ^0 ,T?>rfd"0'rE * tiovlEO t o rtl obi vcf bo&B&p aA 

1Q-" ;fi f^vt) rr'^iT ri-tr I ,fco*rr;?.Tt rr-^c' •^rri'/.erf 


ecwMcf ,8X*!:^(lB-«ft«Ti" Is/tmil bb aevlopfnertt nJt eXJc'itfelsoT ton 

-Xrr 3«l\:rollo|i ©rf* ,si^ ^ .O40 GI , ,oD A tmaisl ot-iskar xa rtl 

:ttcsrp di&w lease direeejiq arfi pvt ' ;■-. 33iTi: 

IHpoXXb ecf i - ri5€,4rfcrf,'T:.oaa ©Xin b ae ;fsrf|;T .X" 

name is sucJi £ one tliat the v/'oi-d will "bo linderstood "by the gen- 
eral pxirchasiing public as primarily ff^ncifiil, and that laanufao- 
tiirors oi" XHlg goods at such place cai-.not so ir-arlc their wares 
and claiin the protect ion of cnxx- la^-s, v -■•..;•'.. 

"S« That the essential featxires of a trade^-marX aro 
those only whioh -^or^re in trhclc or in pa2*t to distinsnish the 
goods or the party "by whom suoh mark la adopted, and it is not 
proper that anything should be desoribed as oGsontial whloh th© 
courts would hold otherv;ise, » 

She word Plt.tsb^irffli bein^ ceocraphioal, &nd yigiip descript- 
ive, and the petitioner carrying on the business of the pianufao- 
turo of puinps at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, it fcllowa that it 
has no ri£;ht to monopolise the words, at least as against evory 
other marruracturer of pumps in Pittsburgh, 

The question romalning is whether by Iiypjionat ins *''^f^ TTords 
the essantial feature of the trade~narli has boen oiiangod to a 
degroe tliat would warrant resist ration, The eoographioal cX. d 
desariptivo T7ordG still rc:>Triain, notwithatandliig tho forn In 
which tliey ai-^ shown in the faQ-aiir-lle, the erjsentlal featur^sB 
of the trade-aarK.^ and it would be a very close observer who 
would pay any heed to tiio manner in Whloh the lottery were 

In the case of ex parte J. M. and V. 7oil, recently deoidod 
by lae^ I held tiiAt in lay opinion a seoeraphlcal word did not 
become a roglstrkble trade-marS: by enclosii?e it in a certain 
geometrical figui:'e, because the geosraphical word still remained 
th© essential feature of the oarK. Eciually so do the words 


-sftrs 6r(i --ccr boo.tEi©:5fixr ©cf Iliw fi-row arf* i-BriJ- eno & riooB ai. oxnsrr 

.av:*5l 1UQ to iioiiro-..__ .... ... , ....i, 

wOrr ai J"! Arte ,fee*<iofc« ti jhMu <iiUB aiorfw ^ ■^c^'IfiQ- c-acJ- 10 aAooa 

" ,ealwiQiiio blosi tLsiov Biissoc 

-ofi'Jj/rrBfi 9f{* to eao.ilamJ erii nx3 sni^-rso 'teaoliliQ<i erii bits ,9vi 
Vrrrrs J-snxfiaa afi tasai j^ ,afciow erfv? esiloqononi oJ^ .-naJti on batI 

t. ' 3rt/:.-)i _ ierfd^culw ., .. , .. ;.jp orfT 

•«t»t«o?: reJitJTOsna erf^t . ul j add- rii; nwCtfffi ©^b Tcari* ilotrfw 

JtaftlM* iltip««^ ♦iJleJP *Tr .bos .il . _ ,._^__„ 'io aaiW) mii al 

P.I) -c\7 ent# oft oe .rum q'-'J Io q'i _ Xai^rre&aaa ar(J" 

Plttstmrpli Pyggp reir.£j.n the essential feature of the laarlc unclor 
Gon,'3lderatlo7i, B.n&. the ir.sortion of hyphens botTroeji the lettays 
doeB not in vr^ minct r^alco the roi'do, not a lar-Ail 
trade-nark, regintrahlo, 

^e decision of the oxonlner of trado-inarlcr; is aooordlJTg3y 

(Sloned) C. 11. Eiicll, 

^ CoEunisB loner, 


June 15 i 1030. 




"V^Iai'-tJ^'ioooB ai cX1.3,'aH^fcB•l:i^ ^o tortJtnnx© ^irf^f to rrotnlrofe err? 

■: ^6X oftrrL 


June SS, 1898, (Recorded Vol, C4, Page S84) 

m^^i'..'j^:;D btateg pateiit 0iT?iC7:;; 

iSx partp Goorga Brynor. , ^ 

Trado-Maric i'or JSoaeiia Romedlos. 


ApillOKtlon for i«esi3tratlon Iliad 3)eoGmber 18, 1897, rr154,753. 

Attomoy :fd2r applioarxt: 0. D. Levis; associate attor:aey; Ali^ePt 

Tli.e l^etltloner a^MltB that •neither *X£0!Q?=i»' nor «}20JJ€!raa" is 
rf^j-lstr^le. KevertTlelesa, h© clalras t:iat l^y lijrphoTiat ing tho 
ror'?. aiyd^ printing *t In the form. showH in tlie fac-Biraile , T.'hfJretn 
the leiuor «X» la ;(> largo capital, t/io letteirs ''a o" ar«^ srialj 
'■?aplt;*'.l^, and the lottors "m a" in saript, 'no impar1>« a charac— 
teristi'ii' to the ^'O'M that rca3ces it registrable. 

I ciannot agj^e«V^ v.'itn hiin. The assent ial feature of tho 
narK, botji to t>)<^ <fee^and ear, is the word itsoir, irrespeotlv« 

ol!" \t3 spilling a/r \j. 

^" 2^-Xar>b(B MttEUTurgh PiffliT' Co, , decided Jxme 15, 1898, it 

I / [ '■\ 

vao hold ijhflit'bv h iroT^Gnat ing the geographical and deBorii '^^ive 

vordr. "Pitts i,.t^reh/puirr)>JJ\no char aot oris tic was imparted to tliew 

which rendere4 "Mi^m reSi^i'^ablft when otherwise they would not ho. 

t .Tho mling thda^^'Aot fSth applies to this oaso, and theroforo 

roglatratlon j^a y(e\nsed\^id the decision of the oxamln«r of 

+rade~raarko ,^s ^^TfaedA ^"\^ 

^ -^ ^ V rsiCTied) C. H. Dueiia. , , 


■Jr^ V 

..:omo T.KTA^ aOTATa asviviu 
.'?:orpc*:0: egtooD filij^^^l x jC 


^ ^r-nq 

.oXcffi^^Eia^'*, ^^i aaXBXrt Jan" J ^'^or **riJ oJ ;'r..Uoite* 
•YlJ-ooc.aaTix ^tXoaW b-xovi en* ai .is© bfic/- -^'^ f «'' "'^'^'''^ 

ovij .X'iCPoil- iiTiB x.boxriiBi30^t>3 Off* artlcfi^ne.r'-^' '^ 'f" "-^•^' ^'^^^'"^ ^*^^ 

.ocf *f.r flifcr '/->rt* oalvnQi1*o rtr. cf^ntiAfiei mW(J *T!*r!tT„^"^''^T 

tnc- ■ hrj, . - r^hii 0* is^.:.^q» d^M-i *cA-,^e»rf* ^-^i-tm 3.^1 

.lonoiaeiaanoO \ 

(Beookted Tol, 64r^ page «W. J 
June 20, 1898, 


Ex Pftrte the Diaikley Celory and Preserving Company. 

Trade-Marlt f%ir Celery Cdrnp^toids. 


AppXleation for registration filed April 6% 1898; Ho. 55,560. 

Mr. Pred L, Chappell for applicant. 

Applicant seolcs to register as a trade^^narlc for raixtiires of 
fluids or llqiiids containing oelery or the extract or flavor of 
the same, a square toottle* This toottle is of peculiar and, so far 
as appears, r>t original foina. The examiner of trade-raarlts having 
refused the registration, his action is now before rac "by petition ' 
for review. 

The rule of law applioable to the suTojeot in controversy la, 

as I view it, thus correctly laid down: 

^'TJie form of ar. article or package r.lone can rarely bn the 
sul);Jeot of trade-mark protection. If the form is peculiar enougft 
to be protected for itself alonn, It way be the nru-bject of a de- 
sign patent.* 

2C An. and iSng. Encyc. of Law, 511. 
7*he decif^lons of the conrtB sustnlnlr^ this proposition have 
I-' ' 

beon very unifo^rm, and in only one or two Instances do I find that 

a court of competent jurisdiction has otherwise held, and such 

exception rather /proves the rule than otherwise. * 

( »ve5 93ac[ f^ ,Xov f>eJ!«ooeH) 

\ .aoino Ti^aTA*! s^cTATa auTBaj 




.033,3S.oW ;8e8I ^0 liiqA Jbeli^ rroii-fii^J-alsoi -nt rrol^BOlXqqJ 

,faj3oiLqqB rroTt Ileqqsri!) .J I>ot^ ,1? 

iB'% oa yJbcw *t&lZtst>Qq to el oXt;focr elrfT .eX^^ocf nmtagm b ^otme axf; 
artJtvBrf sXtaas-QbBtcf lo loaliiWCG arfT •flnol XsntaJt-ro Tco , arrj?!0<rcr« bj 
rrcl&t^f^ yff »t! orrolocf wort si rroitcR alK .iTolteii'aJtaol 9rf^ Jbeexflc©* 

.welvei 10* 
y«l Y3^?>vo^;tfrop cil toeldtm art* oJ- aXcfso/Xqq-B waX I0 oXj» •rfT 

:rtfrofc ftifiX YX^oemoo ax;f(J- ,J-1 frotv I aj 

aiMNOMl WktXjjoeq aJt snot exf^ )I •xxoli^6eion:q ^*csoHa£Mrs;^ lo ^oetcTxn 
-^ « ^ +ooccfjra erf* 0a "^cspi J"! .ivtoXf^ ^oai-i; fo*?- h^t4^'''''^'^'^ '^<i 0: 

,xx5 ^wija ^o onvMit -3^^ ^^ 'Ctft. OS 

tfltt Anil I ot HOonsi^acrX owJ^ to futo -^Xno itl fijtis ^urxo^lxur yrtev noe< 

iftttffc AfQi ^f)Xefr 9^itm<»t[t6 BBti AotttiXbBttssl tamtmipiio0 to ttaoo 1 

,B»XwiBtl&o n&dt eXxn eat 8erOTq\ tort^Bt rroiJ-qooxJ 


■0ot£rifter^«5i» applicant In fi ■jrell-oonsidered argument , fort if le 
by a brief, as well as a srxppleiaental brief , has so strenaously 
contended for the risht of registration that I have oonsidered it 
advisable at this time to refer to a Tew of the many oases which 
support the rule heretofore referred to, in order that the posit io 
tal5»n by the office be shown to be fo^mded on principle and forti- 
fied by precedent. 

The Court of Appeals of the State of Mew YorJc, in Pischer v, 

BlanJ:^ 138 N.Y. , 345, said! 

•The plaintiffs have no proprietary right to this fonn of 
pac)cage, and are not entitled io its exclusive use. It ia a con- 
venient form in which to enclose merohandise of this oharaoter^ 
when offered for sale, and all who are engaged in the traffic in 
the Gonnodity, are free to use it without Incurring the risk of 
liability for an infringement of the plaintiffs* rights* It has 
been too often reiterated to be now ouestioned that, under ordinal 
oiroumstanoos, tho adoption of paalcages of a peculiar fora and 
color alone^ having no distingjilshlng symbol, letter, sign, or 
seal, is not .Sufficient to constitute a trade-mark." 

In Hc^, V, Hoyt, 143 Pa. St., 623 » this statement nay be 


"The ;trado-mark must relate to and distingaish tho goods to 
/%hloh it *s applied, 5tar this reason, among others, the sise, or 
shape, or modip of oonstruetion of a box, barrel, bottle, or paaJe- 
ale In rmloh goods mjkv be put. Is not a trade-raar3c« If there is 
ai^ new and useful c<antoination in the cons tiTiot ion of auch box or 
paoXage, It should be Patented as an Invention, if the owner 
wishes to prejVent otheir> from using iti but such paolcnge cannot be 
registered aa( a tradeAai*..* 

The decisions fl/f the federal courts have been quite unifoita 

in holding 'that the I form of a -oaolcage or article is not the subje« 


"^Xairojjrrerti^B oa BBrf ^teltcf IflJ^neniBlqqira « es ZZqv rs ,1teJ:icf b ycT 

*j: t^tebtaaoQ ©verf T +^'-^'- rtoi.tBritzX^e'i to uriali orfd- •xo'i bebnoiaoo 

rfolriw aeaso '^nsm eriJ' to wel b oJ- lele^ o;^ Qtnli aJtii* 4-fi ©Xaselvfcs 

Oi^lsoq 8rC^ i»tii rtabio nl ,o;f bSTreto^ o*xo'±o*ott9r( aXxrx orid^ cf-xocmwa 

•'Xttol J^6 eXqlonXic no feafiowoi ocf o» firroilB ©cf ^ odi vcT ciwfjBi 

.toefteoe^q ^ bett 

.V %9rioaJtl nl ^XioY woK to ed-BJ-a erit to aXBoqgA to ;f«nfoO €«1T 

rljisa ,5^ ^*Y.w uex ^Axsia 

to cnot at.£ii orf ifrisXT! Tis^^^-'^fro'i? on ©VBf( atti.; ©rfT" 

<*«|e B aJt iM .eajj evlairXox© a*! oJ- JbeXJ-idrre d"on ei6 Jjris ^esBJtOBq 

^te4"OBiJ5ffo fjirf* to eajtistosdeieni Qeolone od" rfoirfw rrJt nrcot ^Jriolnev 

Hi: oJ:tts*t^ exfd- rtl J!>d3Bsr[d ©ib Oifw XXb Jine ^eXBe not ienotto rterfw 

to XaJti eAi sfriTTrronl .tjjorf^j'iw it'i eair oi ©eit ©i» ^nj^iftonrioo etii 

aBff d-I .8;frisJti 'attl^fnlsXq etii to J-rtoaBSfrxitrri ns lOt Y^iXlcfsil 

OiBfrtbtc isAnj; ^ t Arid- fee/iol^aaijp won ecT o^f Jc>©4'finet'^-' "-stto ood- rrsatf 

X)iis lifiox aBiii/oeq: s to a©86XoBCT to icoiJ-qabxj -- .aooiiBv^ auto-oil 

•ro ^ngJiB ^led-rf-eX ^Xocria^B arrl/faiijarritaJ:!) on acrivn'^ ^arrola loloa 

" .iCisfli-efiBno B eiifi^l karroo oJ- irteXoJtttxre ;fon ai ^Xbqb 

©cf "^csw ;^n9iaBd'B;f8 alrtl »5So , .*n ,^1 5M ,iXOll .v ^yoH ^I 

, Ifcnirot 

0^ &&AQS ad* rlaiijaai^cXij i^nc «4' aJ-aXor: iosm :>irsmi--^b^'xi, 9rfT« 

to ,osle Qti& ,at©xf4"0 snoma ^xiobbot: aJt/f^f ixM .h s aft *1 rioMrr 

-XOB^i -SO jOXt^oa ,Xe'i'tBa ,zocf s to £roJt;^OJx. - tc ^liiboci. to ^©-varfB 

a-t 9xttf^ /SI »X'UMn-'Qb6ti a focx hX f&trq ©d vs^m a&oojii rfo.trf^ rrJt 6$o 

to xocf ifBur. to ^ioicioiriJ-anoo erij iJ noi^aiiicfjioo Xxiteilp has werr yob 

tofcifo ©rtif tJt ,noi;itxT©vnl; ita bb h^^nB&Bi ed Mi>orfa i-i ^©bbXobci 

la' 4-001^0 60«Ui»Bq rfoiJB iiKi tit anlai; iwjtt 'Tiexlc^o j-neViStq od^ aorlaiw 

* .jCtfijSWfifit* B JRB fceto^als^'i 

awotXro; ©^Xxjp^ n©©cf ©vsif a^tiroo X«lcefi©t oiW t*» artolaJ:\>afc ©rfl 

jetdira ©rfd- d^on al ©Xot^-xB to ©ae^foBq s y» ursQ'X \mii iad^, ^IbZaA al 

of lawful tradOHaark proti50tlon^ 

ThB United States Ctroult Court for the Southern D 1st riot of 

1IO-V7 York, in Harririgtcn v, LtlDljy, 12 0.C-. , 188, hold that a tin 

pail usod as a collar box was not the sut) jeot of a, lawful trade- 

raarTu Tho ori'-ioism of the ooua*t on the att<^ij^ of manufaotiu^rs 

to appropriate the -exclusive use of pacXages for spedlal purposes 

is thus stated: 

*Th0 question "fjhether any one can seize upon such an artlole 
and make title to its exclusive iise for a special purpose by oail^ 
ing it a trade-?iiar}c,miist be far from 61ear In fayo>» ©f the olalia- 
ant. The forms and materials of paolcagGs to ocn-^din sirtloles of 
EierohandisC;, if such olateiB should be allowed^ ^w^nld be rapidly 
taken up and appropiHated by dealers, until somej one, boidKr tlxaa 
the others, might gb to the very root of thlngs,\and olaln for his 
goods the prtiaitiv0' birown paper and to-ff string sd a peouliar prop- 
erty. Xt will be Observed that it is not a waj^k lat all 'sjl^lch is 
eiatmed, but the Miole enveloping package, the whPle surface of 
Whioto in covered^ ^'by the ornamental pattern, Ther^ Is no name, no 
symbol, no acser ■•-■'::" cf origin or ownership^" 

In Adams Vi Eeisel, 51 Ped. Sep. ^ ^9^ it wasieaid: 

"It Is T/elJL Bottled that a person cannot obtasin the monopoly 
Incident to a tirfede-^iark by the mere form of a vend\lble oasBOdity 
that may be adopte] 

a » 

In Moorman v, 


Hogo, ?. Sawyer, 73, the ooixrt s& 



•I find no/ oaae viiere the vessel, box, packaged or whatever 
contained the art/iole^ has been held to constitute a \trade--mark 
by reason of its /peculiar form or dimGHsions, indepen|ient oi &ny 
symbol, figure o^ device Impressed upon, or connected ^ith It for 
a trade-roark. » / 

The deolfyiinR in the Patent Office in, the main sfi^ain the 
position hej?^ talVon. / \ 


S 5 

to .toltc^prT rrterf;^,;o5 etii lol chnroD Jtxro'jJtO ao^is^a ijr^^aU arU 
^ nl^ £ t;.osi_ ,881 ,,0.0 SI ,^cfQ'ij .V no&^x-n^ rT^ ..r^.v ^^ 

-J^^:-£* Ij/tTOl . .0 ^Oeccfxra a.lj J-Oa GOT XOCr tUlXOO ii B.B J :i£<i 

>t,t; B ^cf/Atu^rtoo o^ .Wart aescr bbh . > fioiiis^iToo 

«ri^ nXs^ ntBm edi at eomo *na^Bq erf* rtt ^rrL-ioob ^^ 

/' ', r \ 


Xn ex P^rte Kane & Co», 9 0*G«, Idiirreetl^ratidh wf «gaX- 
rantsed hoops placed on a "barrel of darX ooldr" as a trade-raarX 
tOT liquors to "bo plaoed in the barrels, was refused. 

In ex part e Jaeob Gordon, 12 0,C, , S17, the Commissioner sat4 

•Tims the box, barrel, or wrapper oontalning merchandise 
whatever Its form, cannot, yfir se^ be the trade-inarX. " 

Applicant's oounsel argues most earnestly that Coolc & Bes^rt- 
helmor Co. v, Ross ot al, 73 Pod, Rep*, ^03, Is an authority jus- 
tify ing the registration, I thinK he misapprehends the soope of 
the decision In that case. It is true that the court enioined the 
dex'endants froa puttijig up a popilar brand of whiskey in bottles 
the same as us©<i by plaintiff, the bottles being of a peculiar 

shape, originally !^.evised hy the complainant. The court expressly 


fo^inded its judgme;]^t tipon the faet that the aot bf the defendantis 
was "unfair competition within the author ii'|ieg , and should i^e re- 
strained, » Howhere Is ^it stated or IntlraatW hy the court that 
the shape of the (bottle ^s, per se , a lawful t\i\ade-4jiaarfc. The owoi 
steply affirmed the doct/rlne laid down In UoxieVsi^rve Pood Co. v, 
Batonbaoh, S2 Fed!. Re?. , bos, that ithere a manuf^idiurer of a hlthei 
to urflcnown fluM or 'tsy©ve^:»ag0 places the fluid befojffe the publio 
In a form of bottle riot theretofore used for bottlliog the sane 
fluid, another raanuf/aciurer ought to toe enjoined from embarrass Iti< 
the former and ml33/J)ading the public by using th^ saiiae bottle In 

putting up his pr^i\ration. 

^ .fieaL-lot asw .alwiiBcf ort^ rrJt Jbeoslcr ocf o:^ Rtowpif tot 

.fclsa <TP-wt,-3a.tmrrTcn f./rt ,vrS ,.0.0 SJI ,noB7oD cfoosl o ^^gcr x9 rxl 
OJ eaiftrrftrfortQW snlniBcrfroo teqq&rw -xo ^le-rtBcf ,2ocf ©rf* exrf#» 

-rwoa j5 XooD Jfiif* vXcfaeirtsd iaoa aoj/ata Xoanxroo a'^asoxXqci/v 

^ ^laaenqxe ^siron erf: , :ne.niB}:qinoo art* ^ .beaive^^r, ,eyBrla 

-ert t.o hls:or(e bt^B , a&l^ntcii&trB mi tttaHir aoUiiBqmoo -ris-irW bbw 

xaoo ©rfT .^rr^^sj^ Xi^^X « ^BBjjecr ,«.» ^x^.todl erf* ^e ecrarfa orf;t 

«» art* Wili^ocf TO^ hBBxr oro-io^cn^rf* iojrr eIt;^ocf ^o nnol b nl 

UTl*«e,TBcfme ./oT<t bBTitHrte otf 0.* .^rfaifo '.e^f^urxi^ ^eri^ortB .Jbii/Il 

-.' QX^^od ocJM ^tit j^i«„ ,,^ ^jtj.^^,^ ^^^ ^t&&.Xr.Bim bOB temol erf* 

•nol^Bi/q^cf airf qn 3n±**tni 

^■i^fc. _j 


Without doubt, if applicant's bottles beerane t'n<^ Identify iT:»g 
laai* by Whieli ills preparcat ions are knowi^ th© oou3rts will protect 
hin against aj^ rival namifaoturer who cople.f=! the fom of bottle, 
but that wili be done on thG ground of \mfair oorapetition ajid not 
because the bottle is the subject for a la-wful trade-raarlc. 

The decision of the ex^Mlnor of trade-mar'Ks In rerninlng; 
registration is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H, Detail, 


JiniO 25^ ^'1896, 











•^^ ■ , ■ ■'^^<^ orfT 

,r;>ua , (.b-»/i3j^;.0 



(Kecorded Vol^ (54, page 475) 


Sx parte rnrlstcrpvier H. Miller, 

Trado-MarX for Cstndy. 



Applioatlon i'or registration riled Msy 3, 1898; serial No. 55,707, 

lir, Jas. *r. STioehy for applloont. 

This is a petition froia the action o£ the exanirier ot trade- 
marXa refusirig to register the word-symtool "Happy jaolC" as a trade- 

mar]i for caiidy. 

The ground on which registration shooild be refused in this 
ease Is clearly stated in ex parte Coon, 58 O.G, , 946, The deter- 
mining S'eason is thus stated: 

"Whenever in the opinion of the Offioe the thing presented 
for registry as a irade-Mark is so nearly like some prior Trade- 
Usjrk as to he likely to lead to mistake or oonfuBion, the Offioe 
ought to decline to register." 

The impression that confusion and mictake would arise through 

the use of "Happy Jaok" In view of the prior use of "Craolcor iMik* 

is so strong that argument of counsel has not shaken it. See also 

(ST:^ ossq ,:K) .loV tobtoooS,) 


•toIXXM .H lerftro^Riirfn aJ-ifig x^^^ 

.X^nsO not XTftM-afiBtT 


•TOV^sa.dM Xsltea jseoi /-^ -^sM Aei'lTt aoltenial^e'i to7. nolc^soi I qcjA. 

.dTffloJtlqq;* «ft vrteorCS .1^ .ast .tM 

:l>=>4-BJa mmii el ao^ke-r aixixilm 

-•Ab«nT -zotrq emoa eXiX -^cXrusen os aX X'XslC-dl^Bna' fi as vxJaXa^^'z "iot 
9^YiO eiif ^aolwdBOMD lo 6^;t8lci o^ £fidX o;^ -^Xa:illtX scT ot afi XrcjsM 

xSauuMll MtTn f>Iirow d:p{fij^alin Jbros rroiat/inoo i&tii aotaQtnq^ eifT 
obX« OdS .ct^X JXoilstiB toa oasi Xoanxroo xo tawnu^'^B i&tii aaoT^a oa aX 


Gold Leaf Baking Povrder Co., 58 RiS,J}ec., 179, and deolslonrs cited 
l>y the ezaminer* 

The deoifiion of the examiner is affirmed. 


(Signed) C. E. Duell, 

C<»anii3s loner. 

Juljr XS, 109G, / 

Dane artoiaioeJb biXB ,OVI , .o«>a.8M Q3 . .oO t^fcvroq srriXBa ^oJ 2>roO 

.tftftJtirisxe erii" yni 

^XXeiKI .H .0 (torts^a) 





Ex parte James E» McWllllam, 

Trado-Marlc for Horse Blaiifeets. 


App^icatioii for registration filed Jtme 24, X898; serial No. 54,977, 
He^prs. SOTjitlig^ato & Southgate for applicant. 

Regi^tra1^i|.<m of the word-symbol »Hone Such" refused. 

i'^Exarainor a:j;Tlimed July 27, 1898, 


A. P. Greelev, 

Aotins Co!isaif3sioner« • 





n \ \ 


.H adWB'G QtiBd Zg 

.Bd'oXcxBia esioH tea X'XBll-ef>BtT 



JboRu^ot •♦rfojal toMr" Xocrimco-nbaow exi* lo rroJ^d-Bi^alaafl 

.8C8I ,vs -^Xi/L Jimnirb loairjsxa* 




' ^. 

July 28, 189&. (Recorded Vol. 65, page S5> S.E.I. 


Ex "parte Iowa Soap Con^aiiy. 



Trade-Mark for Toilet Soap, 

1«& »H Petition. 

Application for registration filed Movendjer 13, 1897, Ho. 54,579. 

Messrs. Edson Bros, for applicant. 

This is a petition from the action of the examiner of trade- 
marks refoslng to register the numeral »»4« as a trade-«iark for 

TTi© applioation as filed set up as the essential feature the 

word and mmwral "Big 4« and was re;]eoted on the mark »Blg 5," 

applied to the same class of goods previously registered by Laata 

Bros, and Con^ariy. In view of this re;Jection and in order to 

atoid the rei'«?renoe, the application was so amended as to set up 

that the eet^aential feature of the applicant's mark Is the numeral 

'•4*, Knit the fao-slmlle remains the same as originally presented 

an^ inpl^les the mark »Big 4,« 

Ttm mendment to the specification was made in conformity with 

a sujgastion contained in an office letter, hut since the fao- 

simlte w€^ not chaiiged, registration wa$ still refused on the ref- 


(53 oaaq ,38 .loV bobtooQK) 

U^Ql ,8S ^Int 

qftoB awoX eJ-iBJ xa 

.qB03 J-dXioT lOt 3CTiilf-<JWirtT 



»V«8X ^SI 

texn ixo^ 

.^nsoiXqqjs iCi . 


aomt^ «rraBelf 

-ftfeBi^ lo t9altaexQ &tii "lo nol*o« orf* morn anttttoq « aX airfT 


«f^ ovrtimt X«l^£twM» en^ am qfj tea toXlt Miit aoiiBolLqm ttfV 

",3 sJta" *tBm wit no be^oetoi a«ir ibxis ^^ aXS" X^irenmT fifua Mov 

AfiGt .ao^ 


•^Xitfffiito BB aaBs mit eatatmr oliaAB^Bttt «tft tutf «*#* 

> ai€« 

I mU MMtf «tt ««l 

tf#Jtw t^lpnolrto© nl 


rrof tao^^JtoocrB pirfi' od* tiiwiiMiriMH M(T 

•QUI erf^ ^ooXs tud tt&i^Bl ooXltlo rxfi nX b^tUaiaot) aolJ9Bfi^U9 i^ 
-)«v «C^ no AatetoY XXX ^b bmt iMlJmJ«lJ|M > ^ .Mgoatfo ^oa ^4|nr aidHftt 

erence olted* The applicant states tliat lie is willing to asmxid tlie 

drawlTig^ bat the examiner holds tindey the authority of ex Pa»t0 

Gold Leaf BaXlng Powder Ccmipai^r, 58 MS, Deo. ^ 179, that the narX 

would not he registrable, even if the w<a*d '•Big* were anltted froa 

the fae-slffllZ© sinoe it is to he presumed that the a^Jplloant would 

oontinae to use the raark as originally disclosed. ! 


She trade-mark "Big 4" is so nearly like the max*: ''Big 5" as 
to deceive the ordinary purchaser and is not registrable thereover. 
It raust be held, furthermore^ that so long as the fao-si)ralle dis- 
Closes the mark *Blg 4«, the word "Big* is an essential part of the 
mark without regard to what the applicant states In the specifica- 
tion is the essential feature. The applicant dtoo loses the raark*^ 
which he alleges that he has used and in comparing it /"fith marks 
previously registered in order to deteiralne whether i^- Is ragll^ 

trable thereover, the office must detertalne for itse^lJ' what fea- 

. /I 

tures of it would attract the attention of the ordlni^ry pur(^ia»er* 
The examiner was therefore right in refusing to regl^er the mark 
ill this oftse. 

Since, however, the applicant has expressed a wliniifi^ess td 
aaend his fac-slmile by (fitting the word »Blg«, the/effi«t of sooh 
adtlon miuBt now be considered. The ^c is ion In ex ^^yte bold Leaf 
Baking Powder Ccanpany (cited above), while reaching (the proper 
eK)n«lusion on this subject Is not in my opinion basflftl upon the 

^i JbnoMB oi anlllJtw ai oil tstit aod-B^a in&otlqqa etSE »5©tJto ©ortote 
esfttfig xe "io "^tlrcorfJ^xm erfJ- lafcnxr aftXorf larriinsx© ariJ ;J^0(1 ^srtiwBift 

Mtn^ beiitato eiew "gia" Mow erf* tt nevo ^slcfsid-slaoi ecf *ofr bluow 
ftXxrow tasoilqjis ^;^ ^sifif b^nimetq ecf oi- aJt tJ: eoirla 0X111118-061 eriv, 

Jfeeaoloelfc x^^&^i^Z^'^o 8« jCibbi orfJ- awar o* otoi^aoo 

«s •« sis* *tBOT &ti& Qill -^XiBerr 08 aJt '^ alS" XiBur-ofcBt^^ eirfT 

••tovoerrorit ^XdBiJ-Blaen J-orc aJ: JbroB leBBdo^rtrq; x^Bntbto Bdt ©vJteooJb 04- 

"Pitb elttrHtti-'OB'i Q(f^ 8B acicX 08 i&iii ^MtHtmHiiifl fhStltthM istm tt 

9di to itsq XAidrreaae riB ai •sJta» Mow 8ri4^ ,*:^ Sia" Xibdi eri4' ae«olo 

-eollioecra ecfi at ae^BJ-a tr:Bot£qq& sAi chsxfw oi fcisgei tssoii&tv jftsm 

Jitstn Btli 8i»eoXo6JtJE> ^fnsoiXqqB orfT .eru/d-fiot Xfil^uMMM erf^ el rrol;^ 

mKraua ititi\ it sfilifiqmoc nt Jbns £>e8i; afirT erf tsrft aail^rXA Ctff xfolifv 

HfiJta'®* B-t v^i loff^erfw enliKeleJb o* tobno at beteJ'eJtaor vXai/olvorq 

-aol ;^Brfw tJKeeiM tot eatanBtot i-aum BotVio adt , lovoorcoilj- eXcfB^J" 

TCf rrlMo ©ri* to aotirasttB erf* *obt:*;^« AXxfOnr tt Isn 89rm* 


ewld' "rofar.soT oi grrlairtOT: nl W3IT arftfie^erf* 8«w •rofrlaM^ «ft 

•oa»o alif^ a: 

o& aaoa^alXJtlw e fcsPBOiqxQ aerf J-rtRolXcrcris erf* ,Tov*»wQrf .oorrl> 

rioira "^o i^^TloW* ,"aia* *>iow Qili aril^J-lino x^ •Xi«t8-o«^ alxf brtmm 

hlooi ^4hD^|^. ^ at rrOlelcofc ©xfT .fce-raftlsfroo ecf worr imm aotlroB 
rmpriq otrf^ galrfoaerc ©Xlifw ,(ovocib bB&to) ^ffxaqisioo •cefcwD? gcJXEa 

wfi' ftoqir sk'iBBtS ttolrrlcfo yita at tort el i-ootcfxra etdi fio HoleuiyoiToo 


proper sro'unds. !fhis office has no ri^t to prestme MtbaX the a^ 
plloant "B-lXl do In fatnre and tipon suoh mere presumption deny hia 
ary sul^stantial right, hut imist hase its actions upon What he has 
don© in the past and upon the showing made deteimine whether he has 
complied with the statute so as to entitle htm to have his mark 

The statute requires that in order to be registrable the 
trade-raarlc shall have been lawfully used by the applicant in for- 
eign oanmeroe or commerce with Indian tribes and that the applica- 
tion shall be accompanied by a fac-'Steiile of the mark which has 
been so used. The right to registration is derived from this use 
and aside tnm the strict requirement of the statute, it is obvicrcw 
that in order that the office may determine the applicant's right 
to registration he should disclose the thing which he has actually 
used and not merely some feature of It which he may desire to u»e 
in future. If some essential feature of a mark actually in use is 
onitted the mark becomes a different trade-mark and its date of 
use ooramenoes at the time that the omistSldn was made. The diff wh- 
ence being essential the marks are as separate and distinct as if 
tiey did not include common features. In such case the adoption 

ane use of the original mark does not warrant the registration of 

# Pirt thereof, but suoh XXIPEK must depend for its lAght to regl»^ 

-q0R oAi iMtin oimraeiq oi iit^Xr on aarC aoJfiTto aJtriT •8t>rfirotc3 taqo-r- 

fflixr ■\ytoi!> noJt^cpnirae^i^ eiam rioira rroc[ir fiire frtw^i/t cit oft IJtJtw :^nBOi:It 

QSif eri 4"«if»r isoqu smoi^oB a^ri: enscT ^siin ^jjcf #tf^l:i X«J: *ftB*acf/jBi tbcu 

^•4tf fM( lttlK^4^ ^rlsnsd-eft Bbtun anlvo/(e oif^ noqxr Ms ta&q Qiit al ertol 

jlTBtn Btti evBrf 0* old elHirtei ot rb 08 BttrtBia erid- tit tit b^Xlqato^ 

erfi- eXcfBiJ^Bisei ocf oi teB^o xxi ^iwf* ao^ijjport e^iflhs^a eifT 
•«mit% <x^ toBotLqqB Brii x^ hesu x^J^^^^^^ifsl rmecf evfift riArfcr iTCtafi^iglia'xc 
-60-tXqctii arivt 4'firi;t fins secfit;)' r«ll>rrl rfJ-tw 99«acaBoc 10 ooneininoo nr 

«it aXriJ- irayxl fceviiel> aX ftoii^si^slaenc ot d-rfalt efCO; ,ft©aw 05 xjeec 

cuxoXtroTo aX :^X ,e^jjr^B^8 (m(# to |lMPWrillfP^*c ^ttt^e eifit nrtlt 9tiBB trr.^ 

tii^t 8'*nBoiXcrq:s &ti& fnxtane&eb y(fiai ecXTio mli iB£lt isfiftc nl iBdi 

XXXsv^os BAxf «t£[ ilcXitfr sQrXff;^ qHJ- 8aoXoaX£ *'^-n<| ftff MNfaliMtlH ^IJiT 0^ 

9Bii Oi QttBeb -^fioi ari: AoJttfw it *io ercirdrsst «■» itX«««M d-oxr l^ns £eaf 

«t.?.MIif Ml v^Xftxr^os XtBor b lo BtuiamJ iAtiamm Mne "^^^ *9Wli^ ^^ 

"Sto e^fil) 8^X ftns X'csur-Qbfi'xd' ;)'its*cG'3:tXft « aHMMcT ^frcam sdj- A«^#XiBt) 

*-%dl:lift o/H? .aftfiicr bbw rxoXaaXmo 9d& tBdi Btali Bdi is ate^MMMMI^ ^"^ 

tl as ^orcl^alA ftns e^BYsqee a« &t» tafram 9tti XMlSaom9i9 acrX^cf eff 

a»X#906B eil;^ saAC ffoire rrl ,B9iut&et mm^ fUI>«{|fi<tl tort bib t^i 

lo noX^faijJ^eXao'x erf* d^nsTtsir ton aecfi aftcBar XsaXslrto ori* t» eax; /;fl:a 

^HiXa^v ot *#if^ u&t -rot ftireqiAh fmajBiTT rfoxm ism f^iovrtii iviq: » 

t rat Ion upon its own separate adoption and use, 

it follows therefore that an applicant cannot omit essential 
features of his trade-mark as originally disclosed without de- 
stroying the Identity of that mar};: and prodaolng a new mark. 
Being a new trade-roaai* it must stand upon its own merits and he 
presented for registration in a separate applicatioiu 

In the present case it was held by the exaraine3ft that the word 
«Big» is an essential feature of the mark and that lis oratssion 
would so change the marUc as to avoid antloipatiLon hy jkhe reference 


cited. In other words, that the new mark is a different trade- 
inarJ: from that originally disclosed. This holding was acquiesced 
in by the applicant since he canceled the wdrd "Big" from his de- 


script ion in view of this statacffient by the exaraineri. 

3?he proposed amendment of the fac-simile woulla \mdoubtodly 
chKige it materially and produce a new trade-mark ^i^ therefore 
it should not be permitted. 

The petitior\ is denied. 

(Signed) A. P. Greeley, 

Acting c\<3iraaicsionei» 

August 8, 1898, 



,osxf fine aotiqobB QienBq,QQ mro a J- J; noqjj rroi^si* 

-oJb ^xiorfil^iw fieaoXoalb vXIimtIsIto rb XiBw-obBid- airf 1o esixrtBal 

,A£6in •!79n J8 saJtoxifccwq fins jCibui i^Brii^ lo ^^-ttaefil edi 2^lx<ytiB 

^fli. JOrak iet&ttmi rciro att aoq^i basis iaim it ittMUHebRti tieix » rvtiiBB 

.notiBOlLqqs ntgnBqtiB a nt rroJt^erc^aJtaei lOt l>e;^n©a©i<i 

bVBm ^i i£iA& rsxailtacxG esli x^ tLod asir ^J: qbbq ict&setq 9tii al 

xtoJisaiiHO Htt iaAi bas itam etii lo etutse^ iBldrtesae ob at "sia" 

©onorrolet ©ilcj y^ nofitBqtot&nB fclovs o* bb ^cenr QrfJ- osttBrio oa filxrow 


-e^fiid" iTKpaolli^ B el ^tsm wen ©xfJ' ^J'BxlJ ,aiJio7; Ten;J'o rtl .fie;*'!© 
I»0©co1xtpoj3; wstt 25rrl£Iori aiifT .Jb:;2cXoR±fc vIXBrrljilio i&ai cici^ *:B.r 
-r^ aW taora ^a-jta* fiiOw oxl* i>9leoriso ©ft ©oaXa ittBctlaqB ©rid" --ccf ai 

txe 0^4' "^cf teafflai-sin airfl 'to ":a3J:v rti rcol i^qliOE 

Xlbot^-iuobmi ^.Xixow ©iJtr - €)ri4' to taBO&aaaiB bi.moqotq aril 

•Jl>dlrtab ai fzotiti^o azfT 

,'y:oX©oiO .1 . -'lists) 

.QG3X ^8 ^^fc^ 


.4* . 



Beptember 7, X898, 






^•"^ Ex parte HorlioX* s Pood Company . 
laam — — 

Trade-HarX for Pood Preparations. 


» in vl«ir 

^application for registry filed Maroh 29^ 1897, No.5S,370, 

|lr. H, G. Underwood for petitioner. 

The examiner having refused to register the -words "Malted 
liilk* as a trade-mark for a food preparation for infants and 
invalids, applicant seeXs tjy petition to review his aotion. 

Th» examiner has refused registry upon the following grounds: 
first, toeoawse the words "Malted MilX" are descriptive of the 
article to which they are applied, and, second, because applicant 
has certain patents for the substance to which he applies the 

The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are con- 
trolling upon this office in its practice relative to the registry 
l©f trade-raarXs. By the decisions of that tribunal two propositions 
at least have been well established, first, that words which are 
merely desorlptive of the character, qualities, or oomposition of 

.8C8X ,V ledme^qofi 
(VVX esBcr ,30 .loV fi6f>iooeH) 


.XrtsqnioiO fcoof b'XoIXioH 9&tS(r XS. 

,aaottBt»qeriq. booFi td XfH tftfiiT 


.OTSfSa.oH #VG8X ,es rfoiBM 68X1^ Tt*BJts«n wl ctottsoiLqqk 

.iQaotHtBq toft fcoowrcaJbrfll .0 .H ,*dl 

Jbe^XaM" bJ&iow ort^ ■xei'aJtserc o^ Aeaxften aaJtvarf rtonlrasxe ©ilT 
JbOB a^nBlrri lo^ rcol^«rtJ3<ierrq tool b lolt XiBcr-efeBiJ- fi bb "XXIM 
•noltofi Birf i7«lv«tt 0^ ttot&t&Bq x^ i4M« ^xxsolXcrqs ,8£IXfivai 
:8femroi3 aniwoXXCi orf;t noqx/ vt^RJtS©^ fieej/iorc aeri rcoalttBXd •tfl 

wa 10 svi^qrlaoaef) ma •XXiM l>e#XsH« Bimsm «tf4 inminT ^i^ann 

J-rLBoi:X?c[£ eairsoecT ffinoooa ,£xt8 ^l>f>lXc[qES niM y^rit sttiOir oi 9XoJ:^'X£ 

•1^ ittttqcpi tl Oolttw ct ^octBtBditsB «Mf^ tot litRe^A? alA^ieo aari 


--aoe e-xB^xjcroo om^^c^dS a&ls#B b^itsSl eOi T» mtotstOfA edT 

Tt*«la©^ ori* •* ovi*«Xw »oJ;*o«rtq 8*1 nl ealTto alrt* rro^x/ sniXXoi* 

axioi^iaoqo^q ov* XanutfiYi^ #«rft le iiaoJtaii«l^ atf* T9 .BXruUEHe^fxi^ to 



mtB Aolifw Bbtcm tBtii ,*8'til ^fcdff&iXcrs^aa XX^w rxdecf >vft|{ ^aftoX *» 
lo xtoXJ-Xao^paoo rco f8eXd^lX«up fie^ostaxfo 9/t* 'io evl*?lrtotM y^o^^J 

an article cannot "be monopolized as a trade-roark, and, seoond, 
tliat where during the life of a monopoly created t>y a patent an 
arbitrary name has lay consent, either express or tacit, of the 
Inventor become the Identified or generic name of the thing patent- 
ed, this name passes to the jniblio with the cessation of the 
monopoly which the patent created* Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 
159 U.S., 540; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Svam Mfg. Co., 16S U.S., 169. 

This office has recently ruled that, in view of the fact that 
a patent was granted for a limited term, while a trade-marX onoe 
registered may be re- registered without limit, the generic name of 
a patented thing ought not to be registered as a trade-marX, 
Ex parte ?. H, Ollson Co., 85 O.G. , 1992, The question for conr- 
slderatlon herein, therefore, is one in fact. Applicant admits 
that «Ho one disputes the fact that both malt aid wheat have l>een 
used, both with and without the addition of ml IX, in tiie i«»nwfao- 
ture of prepared foods,* but strenuously denies that the words 
sought to be reglsteried are descriptive, because the words aoyer 
an Impossible oorapouiid, and therefore are (i>\irely arbitrary; that 

the words are meaningless, because it is liftpossible to malt milX. 

I thlnX applicant] has lost sight of the fact that the teiw 
"malted* includes not^'Wly that which has been converted Into malt, 

but that Which has beenf acted upon by malt. That mllX has been 

acted upon toy malt does | not admit of successful contradict Ion. 

It Is now well known th^it diastase ts not the only feiwent con- 

eriJ^ lo fJ-JtoB* to aaeicpco lexlile ^^rteanoo x^ asri ensrr Y^sti^lcfia 

-toQiRq sftijrf^ eri;t lo oOTsn oiioneg 10 boltliaobt eti& emooecf totaovat 

Qtli to no^^^Baaeo eff^ ritXw olXcfirq Qt(# o^ aeaasq eiosn alxfi^ ,JC>e 

^le-^M .V .00 IsoJtinerfO rwota ♦bed'floio irreJ-sq erf^ rioirfw Tcloqonoia 

.eax ,,a.U 58X ,.00 .alM enuli .v .00 .3^ lesnlS ;0*6 ,.a.U 681 

^6ri;t *o«TI: eri* lo weiv ni ,*«r£* AoXirx YX^xteoei asri ooJt*i1o atrVI 

eono X'tsira-efiBid' s eXXifw ^nrxecf fied-luitx s 10^ fisi'fifi'xs bbw Jrted-Bq « 

lo eciBrr oiiexieg erfd- ^J-IibIX iuori^t-v Jbeio4^ a Jt set-err ocf •\:Bja J!>9ne;J'8i:a9'x 

.X-sBnHefcBtJ- B as f)ert9i^8jt3ei ©cf o& ton isi;^o aniri^ l)©^ne;fBq s 

-rtoo rsolt rrolJaojjrp axJT ,SQQ1 ^.0.0 58 , ,oD rroalio ,H .•? ^yg ^ 

ad'lmS>fi ;^nBr)JtXcr{TA .jtoi»'% al eao aJt ^0V3n:»asnii ^alB^eti rto^^Brmblii 

aoeKf evBrt JiBo/fw fcrts ^Ibib ri;tocf ^sffJ^ toBl odif ae,tjjqaif> eno OH* tMdi^ 

-OfitwKRH 9jr|:.+ nJt ,XXJun to noJti^tfiJbB 0it# ;tx;o;f;ftw i)rTS ri^Jtw rii-ocf ,£e8xr 

a&tow fiff^t .iBiit 9»XnBb xXairoixneita ^xrtf *^a*oot Je>9rc»<3err? to eixf* 

tftvoo al)iow e^it sajwRoecf (evi^qiioanJ^ via MM4ilta€i«c ecr oJ^ iiisuoB 

tBtt& iy:%»*tiltitB YXotxrqi etB oiotenedt bOB ^MpPMPI^o eltfleeoqinJt n» 

•XXjtin ;fXBin 04* eXcfXaaoqittt ai it eaxrfioecT — if *ir *"""**" oib bI>tqv otit 

seiQi Btit iMsii ttMl eili to iti^sfm IPOX cAdWriBoiXqqB Aniiii I 

filBm otaX bei^evnoo rr^ed sBif tiolrtw iaAi xIn<^'toa aeibtrXorti •«fce;^XB«« 

need aarf xxim ^BrfT ,tlBm yxi rtoqxx l>©to« Irteotf aBri rfolxfw ^«f* ^mf 

,rroi*oJLbfirt*rtoo Xj^eaosoKnt I0 *iinfc« ;J'ortlaoofc ^Xb« nf xiog^f J^eJ-oe 

-aoo ^nenret xlao orfc" ^on «i titiMik AMi ovooX XXenr won a J: 4^1 


tained in malt, but that there Is another tihioh has been called 
"peptose", whloh tends to convert proteids of meat (alljumlnous 
substances) into peptones. !i!hat wiljc is susceptible to the action 
of malt, the same as meat, is, I believe, well established. 

Without entering Into any elaborate argument to prove the 
statements above made, attention is called to *A Handbook of 

Industrial Organic Chesnistry,* by Sadtler, editions of 1891 and 
1895, special reference being made to the clause beginning with 
line 18, iage 180, of the Edition of 1891, and page 190 of the 
edition o/f 1895, See also Watts' Dictionary of Chemistry, Vol. 2, 
page 545, and British Patent No. 14,459 of 1887, lines S to 6, In^ 
elusive, iVage 2, 

*Irori Bitters" would not have been held descriptive if Itter^ 
ally read! but the court, speaking of these words, said they are 

"so far '/ndlcatlve of the Ingredients, characteristics and p\irposes 

Of the y^aintlff's preparation as to fall within the scope of these 


, I do not think that the petitioner's contention that the 

Words cower an in^possible compound is borne out by the facts. 

In my option, anyone putting on the market a preparation wherein 

milk h^as b^en subjected to the action of malt may refer to his 

arjdolie as "malted raiU^", taking care, however, in using the words 

I not toj'NAeprlve others of their right or to deceive the public. 

JbeXiBO neecT bbtT rfoirtw teAtonB el erxeri* *«ff* Jircf ^^Lam nl fisrris^ 
BtrofriflorcriB ) i'secr to sbte&cnq ^tevxroo Oit afirre^ rfolrfw ^''eaoitcjeq* 
noi^oe erl^ oJ Qldttqeoeim el XXJLw *arfT .aexTc;fqroq o*nJt ( aeons^acfx/a 
,beiistl(SB&aQ IXew fevaJtlscT I ,al ^t&mt ct6 eniBa exf^ ^tlam lo 
erf* evotq od^ tnenai^tB e^BiocfcX© y^^ o^nJ: sfrine^n© txjoAStV 
"io ioocibrwil A** o* fioXXao al nolJrted-J-B ,9l>Bfli evodja adrteiaa^B^a 
bns Xe8X 1o arroi^JtJbe ^tQlibsS ycf " , x^i-a ici&rfO oinBgii? XBli^fax/fcnl 
Aiifr sfflftnXsQcf eajjsXo exfd^ 0.+ obBot sctlocf eoaonelei X44o©<ia ,3C8X 
^t TiO oex easq boB ,xe8X lo nol^JtfcA 8ri^ 10 ,08X ealbi ,8X QcJtX 
,S •XoV ,>jtt;taXfl»xfO "io xTCfixxold-ola 'ad-d^sW obXb eea .398X t\o aotitbe 
-^i f9 o* S Beat I ,V88X lo cgj^^M.oH ^rred-a*! rial^lrcS i>riB .3^ osb<I 

.S esB^i #evlaifXo 
-rco^lX IX ovl^qlnoaefc l>Xarf rtaecf avBxf J-orr fiXxww "aned^d^Xa J tote I « 


QtB x©ri* JbX«a ,aX>iow eaerfj- 1o anXXaeiia ,;rn/oo etit ^xitf |Z>*ei x-^-^* 
aeeocpu/q baa aoXd-aXied'OB'xBrfo ^adTreXAercariX orf^ lo evlj-fioXJ^ar 'xbI oa* 
eaeifd- lo oqooa e/T* nXxftiw IXbI oi' m notSBtAq^'xq a'TiXdrcXfiXV ©rf* **• 



ori^ ^a;tf* itol^fre^xioo e'ltiloJttl^eq end- #«rid :>{atifd ^ort 

7' -J 

•a^OBl orfd^ vcf ;fxro exrzocf aX fixujoopnoo eXcTXaaoqtiKt as tdyf'oo bMo4 

rxXorrariW aot&etBqBtq b J-aXteiii erid' no sctX d-^juq eooxne ,noXrmio xnt xil 


aXrf o* telerr x«o iXaa lo noiioi ©n* od X)8*o©t<ixre xiafecf sb^ ^txXa 

el«ow erid^ anXai; nX j-xevowoif ,otflo anXXsd- ^^XXXn f>e*X«irt*« as eixoX^ 

^oXXcfx/q nrf.t nvXaooft Od" to d-rfsXi iXeri^ lo artorid'o evXtctoft^^iod- dor 

and at tli« san» tiu^ accompanying tlie words irith indioatlons thitt 

tno article put upon the marlcet Is not the manufacture of ai^ other 

party employing the same term, .^ ^g ^^ y , 

Believing that the vords are so far Indlosd^lve of the ingre- 
dients and oharaoterlstloa of petitioner's preij/aration as to l>© 
descriptive, I am compelled to hold that they a^e ^ot ijroperly 



XS! V- 


J? It will be unnecessary from tlie view whloh/lc'v)*!!^ M *^® ^^^® 
to pass upon the second ground of refusal to ragisij^^r th>:^['''<>3rds« 
The examiner has olted two patents and has : referred, \o tlMsmf^s 
"applicant's patents, •» In reply thereto It Is statefa^rthAt -^he 
petitioner Is not the owner of either of the patents |Vef erred, to 

hy the exsaniner. An examination of the records of tmrje office, 
however, shows that the title to the 1875 patent is |in Ktorlick's 

Pood Company, of Racine, Wiaoonsin. In reference t<i the fle«5^ond 
patent, it is soraowhat miggestive that the applioafiil states Tthat 
It commenced the use of the words in question in Jani||ary, 189^, 
which was just about the time when the application fjor the second 
patent referred to by the examiner was f lied, and th ? patent re- 
lates to a food for infants and a process of preparilig the saiue, 
while this trado-raarlc is sought for a food preparaiiiqV) for Infants 
and invalids. I apprehend that in order to bring jt^Saij^^ ease within 
the authority of the Singer Mfg. Co. v, Juno SJfg^r; fio.i jyipra . it is 
not necessary that the patents should be o^ed ny the parW put- 

lerCJ-o viB 'to etwd'OslirfaBn! ©rfi^ ton RJt ifo^fTart o/f^ frpqj:f.4-irc[ oLpftts orfJ 

•nrted" eraaa e/f* sftJryora-rrm vi-i-Rq 

ecf o& aa^fnoJti'B'xBfeoiq s'lerrolti^-Gq to a©J:d"8lie*-oBtBtfo bms 8d'nejtJ&' 
vXto^odjcr i'OiT OTj^ ^iit tfstii JbXori Q^ Aelloqpioo fflus I ,evJt*ciJ:io8e^ 

oaso erfJ- 44 eXe \?Jtrfn wolv otli siotT: x^BBeeoeima ecf, XlJtw *I 

.BfcTor p>^rrt 'tcQtl'eJt'siin o^- X«RUlei 10 Jbauoig .bnoi^e •■■»'^' "-o^rr prbct oj 
^' iorcaslei Rfiri 6ns etrte^fficr ow;t Jb©^io a«ff tarrjinfixe exfT 

jr'" i»W v+ll'^+ #'- 1-^' cfQ a; ^J: c*©T:ex{j \l<i<Qn nl '♦.aJrre^J-Bq s' JrD=50lXrr(iB" 

'^ -:••":! , , 

ot h^'vt^li^%\ fi.trro *Bq arf* Ic laffi-Jte 1o tonwo «/ft d'Oix si TOfioi*i^«q 


,eoilto y^tmc^ 10 Biitooot ori* 1o noJt *BrtJ:ciBx« nA .Tortiinsxe ori^ -^cf 

R'^olX'tpi ajk El tfio;)-i>q 3V8I eri* oJ- eX^l^ oxf^ J-BrTJ- j^woria ,tevowori 

l>nojs»f>rt 0ff4- «)* eone^elot rrl .nJtarrooaiW .ohIobH 1o ,'w;ctBqinDO Aoo*?" 

^BitiF Rei'Bd'a //i^tsolIqqB ari;^ i'srfd' ©viJaoagira d'Briwo/roa at il ,^rt©i'Bq 

«688X ,Yry^|ftfTs'ii rt/ rtolJ-aaup ni aiitow ©rf* 1o eair ori* beo twiic o tf 

&nbooa ©rid- rrcfcl rtoi^coilqqs orii- itarTw GoXi etii iuod& iaut. s«v riolrfw 

^rrsJ-gq 5|lrf^ hiie ,^9il1 bsw TQrtJtsoixs art* -^ o* fcorciolo^ i-aatsq 

,©inBa eiW^ sd! I^BcT?»rcq Jo aa©«<rcq s Jbxifi a^roBlxxi -rol tool b oi^ aet&I 

Ji ' 
ad-fCBlrrt '^'^'•- "-^d ^^-'tBcjorrq lool b ioI Mbuor al XruMf-o&B^J- airf* oIlrTw 

rrlifcHw ©6130 ih/^^ gfrlicf o;f -xGAto nl *«rf* Jirrf»ri©TqqpB I .afilXBTCfl tos 

eJt il « s'xcrj:fg( ,.,,:, .«"'>" orojL ,v .oo .alM toryxia arf* 1o -^c^liol^xr^ '>rf* 



tlTig out the article under the Identifying or eenerlc name, tnxX 
that It 1b Buffioient if suoh name is given to the patented article 
with the ewnpent, either express or tacit, of the inventor. 
It is not necessary, however, to decide that qujestion at this 
ttee, nov to institute an investigation into thte fact of what oon- 
nection, (if any» there is between the patents referred to and the 
preparation put out tyy petitioner under the tona "tjalted MiXlc.*' 
Th^ action of the examiner in refusing regi#ry i8 affirmed. 

Septemb&i- 12^ 1898. 


(Signed) C. K. Doell^} \ 

Coram:^«8 loner. 

f \ 






.no^rrevnJt a'tc^ "io ,;t^o«;f to '^aafopw leff^Jt© ,*nf»WTOo erft riJ'lw 


.8€8X ,SI i^uDieiqeQ 

.«■ ■■■ # 

Sep/. 8, 1898, "^- M.H, 

(Recorded Vol. 65, page 180) /l/i/yu 

•1 to theru , „^.,,*«s*w-'' . y^-"^ 


Ex parte The Olive Wheel Company, 

«r4 e iWT M«B«f»f Trade-MarK for Bloyoles. 

9s.m aojisr« 


Applloation for registry filed April 16, 1898^ Ho.55,622« 

■ tSse f ■ 
Messrs. E. Iiaas)3 & Co. for petitioner. 

Applloant seeks to register as a trade-raarX for l>loyoles the 
word •Olive'", and has taken an appeal froa the aotjion of the 
examiner In refusing registration. The grounds giyen toy the 

examiner for refusing to register the mark are that the word is 
the salleint featoire of applicant's name, and also that it is an 
ordinal^ surname. 

/Irrespective, however, of these objection's, an examination 
record Alsoloses a fatal ohjection to the r^^stry. It is 
Stated that/t>^e word Olive simply indicates the col|or of the toi- 
J^les aaa^ifRdtixred T&y the applicant. It is w/ell settled that 

iolor al<^n» does not 
met to mono 
; In whiohjiils goods railght be wrapped or the colo/l^ of the paint or 

Hf A I ' / \ 

constitute a trade-mark, 4 If a raanufaotuarer 
fere all<i«ed to monojbioilae by trade-mark the cc\lor of the package 

•H aM 


(081 essq ,30 ,Xo7 bebnooeK) 

,30 mo THHTAi asTATa aamcD 

•8981 ,8 .tor: 

leoxIW ovJtXO erfT 9trc«cr xK 

.aaloYoJta tot jfvBU-ai^siT 


.SS0,S8,0¥ ,8081 ,01 XJtiqA fceXil yrttnl^^ lol nol;f60lX<I«| 

.'xenoI^MJ^eq •co^ .oD A afMWit .2 

ert* lo npJtitoB erl4^ moi;*i XjsaqqB riB aBMi BBti has ^^oyiXO* MOW 


am 8i ^X ;t«4(;r osXfi bat ^mma •'JriBoXXqqg lo emrtBtift tmitlBa 9iii 

j iMMrrrim /^s^Anltto 

•X n .Tt^aXge-j erf^joJ- xioXJ^oetcTo XR*«Tt s aMMXMrxA Moo«^ «l^\t« 

-Xef offcr 10 iq|lQO eiW^ Be*«oXi>rtX YXqnXe avX^IO btow JtC^ijBlIt Ad***"^ 

^BfTcf b9X**»« XX^w aX dT .;fnfloXIqqB orfJ- Ttf Ae-iuiti^tiiraKB aeX0t)B> 

7««ErlMtMcaun a li 


« eJ'ir^'X^axxoe 

i-on «»oft oapX« loio*^ 

art* lo lox/jo exi* X«i«»«b«^J- ^cT ©sXXo^ orcont o* fc«w6XX6 e^ow\ 
10 taX«q eif* le il^xoe art* to t©qq«tir ^cf ^xfaXlut «b«aa »i4 ^Jtriw 


enamel applied to them, then legitimate ooapetitlon would be 
seyioualy Interfered with, A maraifaottirer of bloyoles may paint 
or enamel his toloyoles any color whloh he may select, Isut such 
selection will not taJce that color from out the public domain, 
and any other manufacturer will have an equal right to use the 
same color. ?hls right being a coiaiion one, no manufacturer can 
exclusively hold the right to any color as against others, and if 
one paints or eraaaels his bicycles white, yellow^ blue^ green, 
or olive, he has a right to designate them by the color employed. 
Attention is called to ex parte Landreth. si O.G, , 1441, and 
Pleisohmann v. StarSey, 26 Fed, Rep, , 127, 

3fhe examiner being correct in his action. It is! affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H. Dually 

1 Ccmaissloner. 

September 15, 1898, 




tntaq "^csra aoIOYoJtcf lo 'ieiuiORtsmBm A .fl^iw be^QJriBiat -^Xaxroltee 
xlOtfB ;^xrcf ^ j-09lea x^is eif xfoJtrfw loloo yjoB aelo-^oicf slff Xdcuao «• 
fCtlesaob olXcTxrq erf^ J-jjo afon^ rcoloo d'firf;^ eXsd^ d^on XXlv aot&oerQm 

fDso •xftoi/i'Ofi^EirrDsrri on ,ono rrocanoo b grriacf i-rfali 8ix(T , 10X00 aiAa 

"ii; JbxxA «aier{^o ;^anj:«ss ^fi 10X00 y^ib o4^ ;)'/{8l'x oif^ £Xoff xLevlauloxe 

^ffOQ'ss ,ei/Xtf ,froIX«x f<»^-trfw &6J«H|iE|«r alrf altMne to «*nl«q erro 

•fcexoXcrme 10X00 orf^ ^cf fliarri eJfinaX896 0* W3X1 b a«ri ori ^aurlXo 10 

l>nfi ,X**X ,,0.0 X5 ,At€nba6d Q^figcr xe od^ l>eXX«o a^ rroiifrteJ^M 

.VSr ^.q-sH ,J»»o^ 3S itWffg^S .V rarBmrfoaleX'5 
^t :rf- .rtol^oa aJtn nJt toe 1 iWtf'liltti' tUTllJie e£[T 

fLieua .H .0 (fienaia) 


^8G8X ,SX i9C[ir»^geo 



(Recorded Vol, 65, pago 181) 


Ex parte Pholps , Brace & company. 

Trade-MarX for Goods Packed In Receptacles. 


I Application for registry filed November 22, 1897; No. 54,634. 

Mr, L. s. Bacon for petitioner. 

•The record In this case dlsolcses that the irord * Tiger' as a 
trade-marlt for oysters, fruit, and vegetables has been heretofore 
registered, and the stateanent forming a part of said registry dis- 
closes that the marjc Is or may be employed In conr»ction with a 
representation of a tiger's head and various accessories, printed 
In colors, whloh latter rajay be varied at/pleas\ire or ■Bitted. 

\ <'> 

1 1 

"It is thought that tJJiis case falls Within the authority of 
ex parte Iterlwathnr & Co., j\83 0*9., 1513, and e;s payte Kaufaann & 
Blache, 84 O.G, , 145, and] eases therein cited. 
The action of the eJartlnervtil'affliroed." 

(Slgni\?d) C. H. Duell, 

September is, X898. 


(181 036q ,30 .loV bObiOOoS.) 

.aomo TM5iiA<i aaiA.T3 ohtiwj 

•XfOVpaOO & eoBta ^naTnffq f,.itqr ^^ 

.aelofiJ^qeoeH nl JboXoB^ BfeooO lol 


.Md,^.oH ;ve8X ,SS locfmavoK Aelll: Yi^e^B©^ lol rrol^fiolIqqA 

•■xorcol<^Jt(fda TOl noosa .5 .J .fH 

• lie 'foalT* l)iow erii^ ^axfif Ro«o.roall> ea«o uiiit at Moooi oriT" 

-alf) Y^j-Rlget AJtBa lo ^asq- is snicno'i ^neras^B^a atii Aas ^Jbe^eJ-alae 
« tfiiv mU49mtmm al Mi|OtI«M» ecr yen to al ^^wnr atrt^ ^Bxf^ aeaoXe 
Ao^fa-rcr ,aoi'xoaa«H« 4W»4^C6V biis fiserf a*rto8i# fi lo aolM*aoa«rt(i9< 
Ji^ilmi 10 9iMM«X«|#« £el«C8v dcf i&^ iqUbL itt^ihr fBioXoo oi 
^0 x*-tiOil*x/B 9ff;f nixl«ir aXXal eaao aJtrf* ;r«il* ^iISIKOkI^ «i *I" 

A rutBoftua?! 


J^os ,SXdX , .0*0 m j(|,oO £ iQsitvmtiBH ^TBcr x» 

I' t 

,xxexia .H .0 (JitoJta) 

1 / 

I .oeex ,5X t&amH^i 

(Recorded Vol. 65, page X8S) 



Ex parte Lexington Roller Mills Ccmpany, 

Trade-MarX for Com Meal and Plour, 


AppXioation tor registry filed February 14^ 1898; Ko. 55,130. 

1 1 


Messrs. WllJ61nson & Plsher for petitioner. 

The objeotion of the examiner talcen to the word "Cherokee" 
is thought^,' laider all the oiroumstanees, to be correct, and his 
action ln/;!:*6jectin6 the application as presented is affirmed upon 
that gro-ij|ii!d. However, it is thought that if the word CheroXee 

be oniittted froia the atatesaont of the essential features tlie raarK. 
Is registrable not\*:ithstanding the references cited. If applicant 
amendsl his stat«5ment by meJcir-c the essential feature "the repro- 

saoatatjion of the h^ad of jan Indian and an ear of com, arranged as 
shorn'* and also ca hoels /the word "usually" froia the body of the 
deseription of the tradeHmark, the EarK may be registered. 

^ ' I' ^ 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 

Coramiss loner. 
September is, lOfok 

(SSI esaq ,38 .Xov AefiiooeH) 

^*>> aoiTio -nmAH .a^ia cETnnj 

,Xn»qn»0 alXJtM rtelXoH rroi-salxeJ ft-t'Tftap ^j| 

ntitQll bn& iBQli n-roO tol XiflM-ehfliT 


,051 J S3. oil ;8Q8I ,^I TiBirtcrflff Aelil Y*l*a-t3»^ '«>'^ noi;JBoiXqqA 

.rcftfiol^jt^eq 'xol lexfal'^l A csoBatjilXlf .crctftall 

•aexoioffo* £>iow 0x1^ 0^ xi©Xo;f •xonla»xe ori* lo rcoiioojfccfo oifT 

«lri firm ,;t^oeiioo 6cf o^ ^Bwm&^^e.smio'iio erf* IX« tafirtti ^^rfgirorf* ■! 

*n»olXqrqjg "il .Jbo^-Xo aft<M r ma» t oif^ ^Ibn&fBii^tifrfort eiZdmi9i\^€n tl 
-•^qet erf*" frw^nal lai.iiU^ id; 3.-:X:Lsia -^ i elrf JRJbninil 

yxnee "io ibb nai i>rtA xisiLrrI na !to ftti^rf nrf.+ lo rtnll 

,xx9jia .H .0 (x>axTat3) 

,<-.' -v^ 

S^pt, 14, 1898. (Reoerded Vol, 65, page 183) 


Ex parte Flint and Walling Manufacturing Company. 
Trade-MaxOc for Agricultural and Ocaoestic Itaipleiments* 

Petition. ^ y^^• 

Application for registry filed April 20^ 1898, No.55,646. 

Messrs, Chapin and Deni^ and Mr. F. A« Lehmann for applicant. 

Applicant seeks to register as a tradeHoarX for vindr-mills 
and tanks the pictorial symtool of a star with a wind-roill in the 
center. The examiner has rejected the application upon the regis- 
tered mark of 0. G. Stovell, No. 15,097, registered March 9, 1806, 
Cor wlnd(-«llls and tanks, the essential feature of which is the 
•♦ord-syntool *U. S. Star." There is also shown in the fac-slmilo 
'^%t the registered trade-mark and referred to in the statement the 
symbol of a star. 

It la strenuously contended Xty the applicant that the rejeo- 
tion Is not well founded, because there is an essential difference 
between the narks and the statute only prohibits the registry of a 
trade-mark identical with a prior registered mark. The prohibition 
is broader than stated by applicant's counsel, for under the statute 
no alleged trade-mark shall be registered - 

•^•*^ <58X 0ss<i ,3Q.IoV tobtooeSl) .8681 ,i^Z ,tq 

.aomo TKHiAqi asuTAia oktimu 

a^nofliDlqffli ol^opawa fioe X«ijj*Xi»J;i3A toi X'xotf.tte'xS 


♦dA©,33.0M ,3G8I ,0S IlrtijA bein Tt^aiset io-t xioUboIKk; 


•tf* xtt XX^JiHfcfliw « ri^lw ^tB B 10 Xocfm^a Xaliocfel^i BttS aXft«* ft^ 

-alSe-r 9ri;r xto«tr rroi^fBolXwi M^ I>e;t09t;ei asrf -xoxxlnR© oxfT .^oJns 

,988X .e xftwiH Ae^e;^al30^ ,V«0,SX.oW ,XX9wo;^8 .0 .0 lo xtara Ae-ro 

eri* «1 rfoiilw 10 ew*69l XBi^rreaaa arf* ,«*»^A|I8 aXXlra-fcniw ,o' 

act* tammt^ta oas ai o^ fie-nsiai br^ X«»h*«i* *e^«*Bi»», «n;r l, 

m'mim c lo Xocfcrv;? 
-oetert ^t tent iOBoXlqqB odt vf beboQ^oQ xLesH>m^tB ai ^i 
•aoweWD XBl^noaae ob •! .,erf^ ««,^ ^^$lmoli Llm toa al nol| 

« to Ttc^aiao1 9rf:^ 8;^icflrfo^5 yXno ntutBtB eri^ Ahb uC^M M qww^od 
xioi;ritfiif««q^rfT .XtBffi 4>9i9;feiae-x ^oXiq b rf^lw Xflol^nc^i X^t»H*feB,;t 
e^xr*B#a ert^ ,«|««r ,ol ,Xeam.oo a'toBoUqqB ^cf l>e;fB;rB riBrf^ ^aJbBo.a a 

- htt»iBis&^ etf xxArfa ^ f^^-fi iKiirrii oa 

"which so nearly resembles some ether person's lawful trade- 
mark as to be IDcelt to cause confusion or mistake in the mind of 
the public, or to deceive purchasers." 

Notwithstanding the applicant's argument, I cannot escape the 
conviction that the office ought not to register a mark so similar 
to the one already registered for the same class of goods. If the 
registered mark set forth that the essential feature was the word 
or symbol of a star, irrespective of any accessories, the qfwsXion 
would bo entirely free from doubts 

It is quite true that a court with proper evidence before it 
might come to the conclusion that windHmills and tanks put out u3>- 

der the registered maa* were known under the designation "U. S. • 

articles put on the 
rather than "Star", and that the^ market by these rival manufactur- 
ers were so, distinguished one from the other by the acts of the 
parties an4 their methods of advertising the same that the public 
was not deceived and readily recognized the distinction between the 
snarka. At fls^t thought, I was so inclined to hold, but after 
more raatux^e donsidoratlon I do not think the mark should be regis- 
tered. Itj is a border-line case, but I think the benefit of the 
doubt, so far as this (^ffioe Is concerned, should be given to the 
owner of the registered mark. 

The 8|ctlon of the qixaminer is therefore affirmed. 

I,' (Signed) C. H. Duoll, 

GOJTimiss ioner . 


September 14, 18$^^ 8* 

ll / 

!tO balm oAt nt QjiBtstm. 10 nolairinoo eajjso oJ- JIoXlI ©cf ot aa :(?ii«r 

* .arteasrio'xui? oviooeJh 0* -xo ^oiXcfxjrcr 

«f4' 9q[»oee tocm&o I , c^^relItt;a•tB a'^fiBolXqqc arfJ^ SfrlfifTB^arrJ-iTritdM 

isXJifiiia 08 jMmr « tB^Bt^et ot ton ittsuo 601*^0 oxf^ )Bdi aoltotvaoo 

9di II .sftooa 'io asBlo emsa orf j 10I fiene^alaei -^«Oqr£ft eao arf;f o^ 

Mow etf^ MRr •ttf^fiol LsltaQaBQ edi iaS& rf^tnol ;)-ea :^'xsm ^ence^aisv* 
rtoi^aoop 6rf;t faeltoaaeoos yifta lo ©vld-oeqaeiil ,is^a fi "io Ipcfimca "ro 

•4'dxroJb woiTl ©ot^ "^cXeti^ii© ocf Jbluov 

^J; 0i(©'i0cf oonofclvo rceqcnq: ri;ttw ;^iixoo b tsrfi Oin;J- e^lup el d"! 

-ctir *JJ0 J^irq aXne^t Litb alllio-ftnlw ;f«rf^ nolaj/Xortoo 9Xf^ o^ sraoo ^fi^v 

" .2 .U" aol*saatael> eri* leArm rtwon:?! etaw *i«m i>9'x&^eiSB:r ©xf* tcift 

erijr no ^xm asXoXd^iB 
-tutwtlijrmm XBvJtt saeri* yd ;re3risiri- orfcf ;J-jaif;f Ajib ,«t6^a" rari* lotftlTf 

•rf* "io a^oB Qti";^ Yd tBtito erf J- fli6*tt*^c fc9i(BJ:wsfrl:taijft,,oa (rtoif 

dff^ rR»6«r^ed nol.^onl^all> etf^'follnsoeoi xL tkM9n, Im^ Act Aliffe ;i^oa um 

Torii^ txfcT ^JbXoit 0& bsrtlLonl on mm I ,4Miod^ ^e^xirx ^ik .azCiwa 

-«1b«^ f>ti JbXxroria ;{'xsffi; exfJ- Xrtliltf i^i ob l 

erii lo iilonecf oiit AiJtxf^ X ^jjcf ,eajRo mail /'xeft'sorf A ai 

' --f.n^ 

tl »bvteS 

©rf* oi rmvts ecf fiXi/orfa .tinrrrfHifit» e' -^^^Tl^ HlUt M iBrt of ^d-duolr 

,XX©ira .H .0 (Aortsla) 


*.X t^dta^^^Li^ 

/.'.- 'I 


Sept, 14, 18^. 

TO- (Tl/U^ 

(Reoorded Vol. 65, page 184) 


Ex parte Pllnt and Walling Mamifaeturlng Corapany. 

Trade-Mark for Agrloraltural and Domestic Iwplements, 

Petition . 
Application for registry filed April 20, 1898, Ho. 55,647, 

Messrs. Chapin & Denny and 3£r. F. A. Lehmarxi for applicant. 

Applicant petitions from tho refusal of the examiner to reg^ 


P later as a trade-marX for wind-mills and tanks a symtool of a five- 

I pointed star, with the letters of the word "STEEL" inserted be- 

tween thd rays or points, and the monogram "P W* and the word 

"Co, « pl^ed upon a small five-pointed star which forms the center 

of the l^ger ohe, and which two stars, the monogram, and the word 

•steel" Inrraaageia aroimd the o iroiimf erenoe of the larger star, form 

the matei*;lal parts of the trade-iaark. 

Tmtti nuNrt^ 1 1» i)redeoted on the prior registration of 0. G, 

Btowell, No.isl 097, Ivlarch 9, 1886, for wind-mills and tanks, the 

essential feajtures of which mark are the letters "U. S. and tlM 

I word Star, r^r^ the symbol of a star." 

The a^itipn of the examiner In refusing registration inust be 
•ff Irmed^for' the reasons stated in the decision on the appeal of 
this applicant, in application serial No.55,C4C,thl3 day rendered. 

SeptertbAJr 14, 1898. 

(Signed) C. H. Du«^ll, 


.H.M (^81 easq ,38 .loV beblOOGH) .8Q8X ,M ,^«i»e 



•XP«qcioO snlttj^ofi'iiatsM arrllXsW feoB J'ftiXI Qj-tgg xS 

,a;tTtftDi©IqpnI old^aeaKXI fens XBixrJ-XxrolnaA. tot jCMM-afceiT 
.Vi^6,33.oH ^8G8X ,0S XitqA fceXil: Tf;^ala«T: tol noi^aoiXqqA 

.tfiBOiXqqfi TO'i friB/ntfoJ .A .1 .iM firto vrcrr?»(I A rriq-BrfO .sir 

-a©i oi T9rrlxnBxo orfJ- lo Xsaiftot erii morrt RrroiJ-itsq *rrsoiXqo[A 


Jbetjlxq ".< 

le^rreo Qff;t aowo'i rioXrfw ros^fa betatoq-Bvl'i XXsma b rroq» JbOMl? " .oO* 
fitow €if(^ fcxiB ftnui^onoBt eiit ^bibJ-b ow# rfoXrfw bctM ,wlQ i«8^X eri^ io 
m»t ^Vfti-* 'JiBMl ert^ to eo xia f i O lanj oiJ o erf^ £fworcfi ft^jl'ilii •Xee^a* 

.XtBM-QfiBi;^ ertd- Io e^iBq Xiitfiio^Bja 9Ai 
.0 .0 to frol*Bi;tBl80t rroJiTcq ort;t rro Jbocfoattt^' al ;C<BW airiT 
«if{^ ,aj{£iB^ &nfi gXXlBHbalw tot ,888X ,e rio'xsM ,?«0 iSX.M ,Ii««Oite 
flit ^xxB .8 .U» Bttei^^sX ©rfd^ ©IB XiBOT ffoJtriw to a9t£rV«»t XbI -tneaae 

" .iB^a B 1^0 XoctorfB edi n^ ,<sb^8 Jbrcow 

to ZBmq(iB dill no xiolaloeZ) erf^ at b^&B^^a aanmm BdS ncnr^beantne 

Jboaaiirtjvj: ■v^ e^rf*,a^0^33.ol! XbIiog .rrolcfBolXqqB ni , ^OBoJt f "^fi aJtriJ 

,XX?tffa .H .0 (fcerrala) i 






(Raoordad Vol. 65, page 185) 


Ex parte Sohandeln & Llnd« 

Trade-ltork for Toilet Artloles, 


Applioatlon for registry filed April 5, 1898; serial Ho. 55,547, 
Messrs. Wiedersheira &• Falrfeanlcs for applicants. 

"The action of the examiner in refasing registration of the 
words »Cuban Violets*, -upon the ground that they are either do- 
Boriptlve or deceptive in oharaoter, seems to he well founded. 

*Thi8 oase ooraes within the ruling of ex parte DeMovllle & 
Co., 58 MS, Deo., 14. In that ease registration of the words 
"Crushed Hoses'* was refused. The reasoning in that oase applies 
so dlreotly"; to this, that nothing would be gained liy a lengthy 

discussion of "^he question. 

•The aotl/dn of the examiner is affirmed." 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


September/ 14, 1898. 

(881 essq ,30 .loV bebtOOQK) 

.aomo TMaTA^ aaiAia (Efctihu 

lJ'«tA ^elioT tot X-taM-efiBiT 


.VW,35.olt iBltea ;oe8I ,5 XJtiqA X>oXll x^iBt^^et tot aot^BOtlqqA 

-oil •xBrfi'Jte •«» ^erfJ^ d■arfi^ fcimorra eiit noqir ,«a;teIoiV ruscflp* a&tow 
•MtavClt XI9W ecf o^ «»MI fTev-csTfixfo ni evi; J-titeaf > 'to (NvJtJ-qlioe 
* elllvoIliKI eJ-fgcY X9 "it aalXirr arf^J- rrirf^lv aSflM MbM alrtT" 

•ft^cow tif(^ '!to xxoi^B-x^slym mmso ^Bifi ixl *M f.i»f»a .8M 83 , .oO 
««lXqq« «wo iBtii at atxixtoasarr f»ffT .Aeau^ei mmr *wnk»K bailairxO" 

jCtOJl^aejUp Q£li to ClOtBUItOBib 

.xxaoa .H .0 (6Q«sJt8) ! 

.868X ,M iWilWi:i>^T»B 



•*■ J-~ f 

■■ .1- 

6. ^Ji^ 

\ |©pt, 9, 1896, 

(Reoordad Vol. 65, page 180) 


Ex paxte A. stein and Corepany, 

Trad^-MarS. for Carters. 


Aprlloatlorx for reclstry filed Novemter 10, 1897, No. 54,559. 

Messrs. Piie|3ro6 & PisHer tor appllaant. 

This Is! a petition from the action of the examiner in refusing 


registration^ of the ?rords "Uncle Sam's" and a representation of the 

figure oonve/htlonally loiown as •Uiicle Sam*, as a trade-marX for 

garters. TH.c examiner has roade otjeotlon to the forra In whloh the 

alleged fi^t^W^ featrires of the raarJc are set forth. That part of 

t^e stat^cnt olsjootod to is the folloTflng: 

"eltihor In Identity and entirety aa hereinbefore described and 
*s lllustirated in the aoownpanylng fao-glRlle or to mtoh extent and 
In such rear resemblance thereto as might be calculated to deceive 
and idiBlkeA the public. *■» 

wytwlthstandli^g the argument of applicant's attorneys, I agree 

with/ohe •spaialner, and believe that his objection is well founded. 

firrain peafjttiMilons have been protmilgated by the office, and among 

tmm is tJi.V requlrecient that the application should particularly 


dt«orintlnat.ip\ between tlje essential and non-esaentiai features of 



' 'I'm;' 

.TPX&<IJK)0 6«s rrio^rs .a 6j-xccr xD: 


.aT»l«M* TOl JtraM-oftstT 


.G33,>s.oK , 

VP?!r ,or -ricfm^voK halt-Y Yl:c^c•l3c 

.^nsOlXcrgfi tot "Tftds^ 

aciaosa, rri «,rtmx* art, ,0 aotioB 9.« ™,« .toUMaa «L.l alrti 

Ml ^0 .louste,.,,.., ^ 6a, .,.™a olorrtJ. «,« «, 1« = <io««,,8/Scn 

rsnlworxol orfj at oi Bs*oottfo ftr.rr- -aJa a- 

■ A 


the alleged trad9-mar3c» Section XJ8 of the cyads-MarX Aet of 1881, 

authorizing th© registration of tradenmariks , provides - 

"That t}io caunisaioner of Patents is aathorized to maXe rules 
and regulations and prosorlT.-'^ forras for the transfer cf the rl^t 
to uso trade-iaajrtcs and for reoording suoh transfers in his off !(»©.• 

The regulation at>ove referred to, laad© in oonfonulty with th© 
statute, is reasonable and is in the interest of applicants and 
the office* It is for the court to decide In ^latA Mse ifhether or 
not a Toarln daisied to 'oe an infrlngeuient of a registered roarX is 
"in l.-2entity and entirety* similar to. the registered iiiarlc, as il- 
lustrated in the fac-slraile required toy the statute to be filed, or 
whether it is calculated to deceive and mislead the public. 

The objectionable clause inserted in applicent's stateswnt 
can add nothi^ig to the strength of his position, if he should be 
compelled to Broteot any supposed right by recourse to the court. 
In any ©vent, before the alleged trade-marX can. be registered, tho 
Objection 0|f the examiner must be removed by cancellation of th© 
object ianabX© ola>i^a!e. --^rtt^-f 

Sh^ eapainer jhas found the tradenoiark anticipated by the reg-« 

istored trado-^uiWfkl of I^arnsworth, Mo.J55^eGO, of February 5, 1895, 
for the words "lAioile Sara", and the conventional figure of *Uncl© 
Sam". An ex^ainatVon ot this registered trade-mark discloses that 
the registrant adoi|ted it for use as a trade-mark for wearing ap- 

parel for men and fi^s, and that the particular desoriptlon of 


%iit ti&ttr x^^Bnolaoo al abBis ^oi bovti^Taon avocfB /roJt^BXxis&i eifT 

AOB •#iiawtff^ 'iO 4^8eT8^nx gclj lU ai Ans oIcTBrraasoi ai; ^oiu^sia 

10 leff^vifir ••§# 4Mf» nt sbJtooJb Oi^ ^iltoo a/f;f tx>t el ^l .eotlto orti 

bX itam ilVNvlSi^ b "^o tmmmat'ftnt ctB 9cf o^ ^iiftflfT 4ipc B Jca 

TO ,ljoi.J:!t e»«l oi ■jiu^B^p. esii yc^ 6qi Ixt pet Ql 1 flit a-oftl ecf;i rU JbeJjBiJ-euX 
.ollc'iiq 9rtv+ i5B0lal!5( S'iXB ^rXei>eb oi boiaZisoL&o el ^1 iQri^Oitfw 

jaaae.«.54'!:i a'j^isoiXq'qbS * 1 ^ooxosai eajjBXo oXci6noiJOQ[.ao ^xli' 

OCT bltrorla Bii IX ^noiiXPoq alrf lo il^aaei^ta etf.t o<f aitiriJ-orx bbz a£0 

.jiijoo ariJ- oi i'a'usoixyt xd Itfal-i l>OBoq[qj/a •^;a£ Jc. " o« £>©XXoqpioo 

di<\^ lo noX;tBXXaor[B& ^cf bev9UBi ecf ^axoi a»ixJtlaiS# 9iii io aoxjouci^o 

"^tlBn mii ictf Jbo^fBqlol^iiB 4nMm 9MHi 9g/t bnaolL g . msiv -rri? 

««!•£ ^ rMO«^«9 "to .QOi^m^M .ilPtrnmniiZ ^ bf-i^lMiMilMplvo^al 
- VfVRU" ^o 9'xJJBl'S X«IMiMHHi^-«*^ bOB /'fliM elMfU'' ctV^ov t>r(;r to! 

^BfT.' i^.-'woiivi^ih -/ti^fir-ehf}-!^ r iiilliii Bxat TD(M^'$iiUtilt» ha ."mda 

~<2« SCfcaMw lot Jf'll iliWl' * SB 9BU 101 tX b^fttlm inBtiaX;^t oifj- 
"to itoX. ab •i&lsjoXii&q siii i&cit baB, ,ax(^ £>«* !•■* ^Wi Xoteq; 

goods comprised in avmh olaas on wliiah it is used is olothlng o:f 
all kinds for men and tooys. It Is apparent that the registrant 
intended to oover the class ox" wearing apparel used toy men and 
hoys. In view of the dooiaions, ooth of the courts and of the 
off loo, I ara of the opinion that ■srhore an applicant intends to 
cover a class broadly, it is iinneoessary to mention evory partic- 
ular description of goods oorapriaed in sucfli class* Smith et al v, 
Reynolds & Jacobs, 3 0,G. , 214; e~ parte Boehn & Co., 8 0,G, , 519. 
Under these deoisiona I thiiiii that the registrant would "oe pro- 
tected by the courts in the use of the trade-marX when applied to 
garters, I thlnk^ thereforo, t}iat the applicant is anticipated 
by the present registration, ax parte lianny & Co. , 17 KS. Dec. , 

It may be that th© registered mark is not iia use, or uhat its 
owner has not used it and does not oaro to use it in oonneotlon 
irith such articles as garters. I thlnx it would be proper for the 
office to register the mark, if applicant should file a written 
statement from the registrant evidencing his consent. As the oas« 
stands at present, the action of th© oxaniner is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. U, Duell, 

SepteJTiber 15, 1898, 



law^eiaoT ecC^ ^jsrfi JlflPUiqq:^ st cri •a>:ocr £>rrii item tol abntx lis 

ariJ^ to l..y, .V o/co eciJ ^o Aioii ^soolaloeb afli :io w«lv rtl .byoc 
o^ lifiwrfif #n«ktlqq» tm Mtott^ Szri^ aotsxtqo eri^ "to ros I ,eoJ;^o 

ACT JblJVfr «riirx;t-8l3d'x urf^ ^AruT >ixiX/f^ I aaotalo9t wmult tsbaU 

rtaitMmit nl tl 9mtt «t 9'UM ^on »«Qft bm tt MMr ^orc s«rf lorrve 

xie^l'drl'xw a oXil tXiroils ^xxMXXqqa 1:1 ^itam 9^ ^pttBt^on ot ooino 
•0*0 «rt# «A •iMilMi* «.ti( mi^ta^Alr^ ia*x4«Jt8*v *^^ 'K'^ Jiawmu lBt9 

.38Q-C »9X ifKfjTieJ-qi&S. /| 





September 20, 1898. (Recorded Vol. 65, page 209 > 



irmnMi i niutn a 

Ez parte Thomas H. ioolimemey. 

Trade-Mark for confeotions. 


Applloatlon filed May 16, 1898, No. 56,787. 

Mr. J. Walter Doiglasa for applicant , 

.3 « 


petitions from the aotlon of the examiner In refixs- 

Ing regtatrajtldn of the word "Chewles" as a trade-iaarlc for oonfeo- 

tlons of ;^he nf^lrsh-oiallow and oreaa or molasses type. He fv^rther 

petitions' that [ in oase the word *Chowle3» la bold not resi8tra>>lo, 

he may :|;4e permitted ; by anendraent to prefix the word *Dewey's», so 

that tne marlc will be "Dewey's Chewios", either with or wlthoiit a 

parapyi about and undei^ath the word Ghewles. 

.'/The application /as presented stands rejected upon the tra'^le- 

marx^f the Chtoaeo clmdy Coapany, No. 28^691, July 28, 1896, for 

the wor^ "Chewso* fo^ ^hewing oandy. The applicant Insists, as I 


understand his oonto\nt 

latent Ion, tha 

that a word oust be written like 5tnd 

soitnd llk<V' a reglste&^ed trade-mark In order that the registered 

marX be a jpertlnent 

oe. I cannot agree with this oontenr- 



(eOS esBq ,30 .XoV AeMooofl) .8G8X ,0S tocSuvQiqeS 

^XBO-xemiltm .H 

T 8^isg xa 

.anold-oelnoO iCi >[ibM-gI>biT 


.V8V,3S.olI ,8681 ,81 ^bM fieXJ:^ rrol^BolIqqA 

.^iiBolIorcis tol RRBlsiroa leJ-leW ,1 .ill 

Ion to fiiBOT* Jbos voXlMMfercir^pr etfi^ ^o erroi;t 

— "^■'t'COO tot 

,f)X<(»«Kd~«j:8»ic ^ofi JI>X9lf «i "•aJtwoxfO" Mow «i«C^ MM tU^iMU ^UiffOlvtlieq 

- • ■ •• • ' :. . f ': Ai 



Rti «C# mmr hB&e0t9v •ktmt9 b^jnwtn »»ia9t*mollqqB mgf 

rrot ,8«eX ,88 TCXifTi ,!», 

Yfcn.'/iO oasotrfo eit* to^^rca 

T !?>fi 

s^sAftfU irctelX^tv Mff .-^ot^ ]^ 


J^««9tBla(yi e<f# ^«if^ T«l>-co rc^ ^tram ^ati 

ftWUs^avs • ^jUx 


-fro^noo Biri^ xf^Jtw 

d^onnso T .oo^»y;•c.'i9^^^^te£Il*•!:©qr s ©cf > 



tion. Were applicant oorreet It would never have been held toy the 
drourts that "f^apolio" was tnf ringed "by the iis« of the word -*Sap0n-*, 
Ite"; "Celluloid" lay the word ••cellonlte*', and "Chatterbox" by 
•Chatterboolc. " The ditlerenoea between the words above quoted are 
no greater than between the words "Chewso* and "Chewies.*' I an 
therefore o.f the opinion that the rejection is well founded, 

"Jh'*^ ohange whioh the applicant soeKs to have riade by aiiendnont 
in the itlixrJt as origliially filed is one that the offioe ha» several 
tiuea rule'l oi;ieht not to be permitted. It would require a new 

'•^-^r.nrrtHi'imt'i'^'^^^**^'''**^^ '■'^ 

d?-awl;i^ knd a new statement. In ex "Pa^rte Calvert A Brother, (34 

y « -;■ " 

l^.0©0, il57, the Goraral '32 toner said: 

"I lo not thlnX It good practice to permit such ?». ayiixn^f: to be | 
made In shat Is set forth as the essential feature of a trade-raark I 

ac iii£;:.-)t]/ taalf.o -iho statf^p.^nt ^a to tho period of nac-, not apply to 
the new /mark. » 

Byt whether the length of time of use would apply to the 

amen#d)mark is not entirely oontrolling. It night apply without 
makl/ig the araendment one proper to bo permitted. Applicant has 
Boua;ht to register the word "Chewios", and ':flMin that is reelected 
on rei^erenoe there is no good reason for permitting htm to add 

pthi(br {features not disclosed in the stateiaent, I do not thinK, the 

' i 
aHjfendnient is a proper one to be itiade, 

^* a|)p|. leant states that "•Dewey's' is not an ordinary sumaB©.« 

Jl can hardly agree with hire that - 


exit YcT fciexf jtieecf evsri tevea l>Ix/ow ^Jt i-oeTioo ^rtBolIcrqB aieW .nolvf 

'id ^xodtBttsriO" baa , "ocfiiioiioO" i-;^ ■:> Xd "ftiorxrllsO" i"^il 

o^B bf*i()ug ovoa'i:i abrcow ©rtif rteftw^ecT eGorcf»TO'itlfi a/f: " .Xco'Ji*ir;tBXlO« 

ns I » .aciwartO" tae, »oeY/o.-iO" aJ5>iOTr srfJ- rrrawi-acf fTt«f(;t 'xa^^F.S'sa on 

w«»ft ii fjrtiiipsi bLisov i^l *b&titBn^ ©cf o* i( 

:i)if,B -«noi aiJii^O or:* ,V3lL. 
jTlAPf-ft.fif'r.t 6 tr f>Txr*Bet iBttatmm erf* as rf*ro'i *08 at tMtm. aX 9tim 

©ri* o* vXaqfs BI;row eair lo o«t* 1o ri*3ftel srfJr ^^ri^artir |ya 

^xrori^rXw vXaoi? vrfaln *I .aniXIoi^noo "^XB'ii^n© *oa al *t«ni(i>t^^itOBW 

iusrf irt&otiqqk ,bGd&tscKoq e<i o* tceqcxq enp ^xxani^aHMHi srfv 3:^'i;:;{fim 

*«»*oe|;ei e,l tjuii no/irr fj.ifi ,"aoiwerfO" bto^ an* ^9*0x39^ 0* *xl:\jX;oa 

bbB OCT ciJ:x< sni^Jicneq ':oi noaBOi Aooa on al «T«tf* •etBW»l©'l rio 

««tJ' XtUa* *or[ Qb 1 •*izacie«'B*i: orf* ril lyeaoloajtl) toa ao-wiBi^J: 'i(ktiiQ 

.dbsffi 9cf o* ano isqoiq b aJt *r«n*£t':Ma« 


-After the events at Cavite and Manila culminating in the 
nave.1 victory of May i.t, 1898, 'D^wey' oeased to be^ o^dlna^ 
Bumarae and Deoame historical, fanciful, and romantic," •'"'^^^ 

and therefore registrable. However, this may be, it Ib unnecessary 
at this tlrae to decide ^mether or not under the cirounstanoes 
stated the narae -Dewey- is registrable. I cannot, however, refrain 
from expressing the opinion that even if it be registrabi^e, no one 
lias the right, wlthoiit th© consent of Dewey, to approprlajt© it as 
a trade-mark. A living celebrity is entitled to /protection froo 
the ordlnaiy trader, { ,» .] 

The decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

Soptstnb^r 21, 1898. 

(Si^ed) C. H. ipuell. 

CocanlRn loner. 



t. >:• 


* , oJt ixtemot fins ^Xxr^lortsl ,Ifiotio^air( smBOftcf ferrs eet 

on ^©XcffiiJ-alseT; ©cf it tt rxevo ;t«rid^ xtoiniqo srfJ- 3fTla8et<p:f» rrjor^ 

B« i^Jt BiJBttqoiqqB oi ,Y»W9C Io tnearcoo Btlt incriitv ^J^risii erid' sci: 

ao*A n(it&oQioiq\ot belttiaB al vj-jtttfeleo ^tvtl A .Xi««-e&«t* b 

j J^MTcilts b1 ibnlfflBxo Off* to rtolai^oofc erfT 






fllept. 22, 1898. (Recorded Vol. 65, page 223.) 

■ • •' ^hited Stated l^atfint Office. 

Ex ps.rte Sylvan Dalslmer & Son^'^*'^'^ 

Tr 3 de-Mark for Bicycles,'^Jfct; 

k.: ;.,i>^:M 

^fpllcatlor. for v.-.- ■ ^ -"r.ol Jv.r.s 14, 1858, Ho. ": ,952. 

.. :.oiirt« 

Ilessrs. Wiedersheim & Fairbanks for applicants. 


Sylvan DalsimGr /fc 3ons, a fina, aea'k to reo-ister the name 
iPaleimer* as a trad'^-nsark to he used fo^- blcvoles a>i<f parts thef'Gof, 
jpd appeal from the Qction of the fiTranirwr refi'sirr/j re,-^! strut ion. 

Applicants seek to register thoir sunv.rc, ar.d '-:- their ap- 
ptel I aiQ asked to ignore the statute, ovcrtr.m A' rrell-settlcd T^ile, 
and reverse the Suprene Court. Section 3 of the t fade -"rnaf-lc lav/, iiy- 
prpved March 3, isifl, e^preflsly states that no alleged trada-niark 
»ball be registered "which is simply the narae of the applicant." 

In Brown Oheralcal Co. ▼. Meyer. 1?>9 U. ^., 340, the court 

"It is hax^lly neceasan' to say that an ordinary sumajsie can- 
not be appropriated as a tir6,de-oark by any one perscr: as against 
others of the sama name, who are usizig it for a legitimate purpose*' 

(.ess 98»q ,ee> -XoV baMooefl) .8681 ,2S .iq 

,^>^W\_. «r,h->-*n ■'^.-. -q P..t.v:B hf-^rlitU 

.aojtiic r ■ 

.8I108 " ■ .fiUaljia rLSvr;3 j3^T£a i^ 



cW ,SC8I .M ©.-.VT. tc.'. 

jj ctoi *:?•?* It t1 

i;rnBolIqiB -fol 8SrTiirftli*f * Kl^rf3^^I>«l▼ .3*t8v .: 

■f ' 
.itoiiatizih^t B«ls"*tot vorf.i:rmx« aiW lo rto-i*o« ari^ soil Ib«W« bfli 

Mtism-eb^-il ben«»ir» oft .t»i1;r 89*s;r« ilB.eicrxt ,I«»8X ,€ rioiBll bev«rK 
«.;raxir,rlqq« (^df ^o 8ffU»n erf* xlqml* at KoMw* b^^a^ains^i «<* XI*||^ 
iisjoo »fict .04*8 ,.? .0 Cfil ,t»YeM .t . •©. lAdtoerfO nrrota rtl 

W\ -2- 

\ fh^ same eourt* in the later case of Columbia Mill Co. v. 

Alcorn* 150 U. S., 460, after referring to the case of Mfg. Co. v. 

Spear, 2 Sandf ., 599, In which it is laid down "that no one has a right 

to approrpiate a sign or sjiabol which, froai the nature of tha fact it 

1ft used to signify, others raay employ \7ith equal truth, and, therefora, 

have an «qual right to employ for rhe same purpose", aaid: 

"It is upon these principles that a person may put his ots-ti 
naiae upon i is owji g'odG, riotwithstanding another person or the 
samo namo may, in that naae, manufacture auid sell the sajae or 
similar articles . " 

The general rule as to the appropriation of a sumaxae by 

Its bearer has beer: upheld in nearly all of the State courts. Per 

example in Rogers v. Rogers, 53 Conn., 121, the court In stating that 

there waa no authority or reason to support the doctrine that the fair 

honest use of a surname can be enjoined, said: 

"Such a rule would operate in restraint of trade, and pro- 
hibit a person from using the ordinary means that all are en- 
titled to use In the prosecution of business entei^prlses, that 
such use contains no oloment of false representation or person- 
ation in any .lust and true sense, and that, though it may be 
time that a possibility exists that the goods of one will be 
purchased to some extent by persons who either kr.o':"' ro distinc- 
tion or even by the occasional fev v^ho suppose them to be the 
C oods of another: this condition of thln^-s is Inevitable in 
trade and coiamerce, inherent in the nature of things." 

In the later case of Wa. Rogers Mfg. Go. v. Siiapsin, 54 

Gonn., 527, the court said: 

"The lav also gives to a manufacturer the right to use his 
oma naiae as a mark upon his own goods, although it bo the same 
as that of another manufacturer of similar goods who has previ- 
ously made his name a part of his own trade-mark, if in such 
use by the former there is no false representation.** 


,;. ... 0.0 o. ...>- -0. ^,..x .. n .-- «^ .- .•-- ^ "-"• 

;,UB .-e..,.«, o..e ..•-. .cl .OX,™ c, .^i-^ X.*. «. «« 

*Brf* ,«.3tT<no^-^3 "'"*'"' ]:^^?o "pomelo o« 8ni«*rT00 ca« ric«. 

ai e^.f3^t■^..t .^ a.rrtrft ^^f '• !^^Pri^\eonefflmoo b«B eb 

«ic . «flr to »eB3 t»*bX eri* «I 

9itB« •!!? od ^i ^^'''^^^^^^lo ^^x;*oBlm^ tari;ronB lo ;r^Ai .b 


Clearly applicants have no right under the statute or> in 

the absence of any statute, under the well- set tied rules of law appli- 
cable to the subject, to register their surname as a trade-mark. If 
the surname is unlavv'fiilly used, even by one bora tc the naine, the 
fourts do not hesitate to prevent such unlawful use. Welter Baker & 
Co. V. Sanders, 80 ITcd. Rep., 894. 

The dccisiori ci' V.\e exaniner of trade-iaarks Is affiriaed. 

C. K. Duell, I 

Corjiaissiorier . 
Septembsr 26, 13??. 

ai ,10 BiuiB^H ariJ lebaa idi&tt on ©vBri ninBollqqa tlnaelO 






/ : 

! Sept. 22, 1898. 

(Recorded Vol. 65, page 228) 



Ex parte Horman J. Macdonald. 

on sn " Trade-Mark for Medicinal Beverages. 



■ n or 
Application filed Jtme 6, 1898, No. 55,891. 

Mr. A. V, Cushraan for applicant. 

t« o7W> (yT 

Applicant seeks to register the oowpound or hjrpJienated word 
•Non-Tox*, as a trade-iaartc for a olass of goods termed "carbonated 
root and herb extraot.^ The applloation stands rejeoted on refer- 
ence to the prior registered trade-mark of Eilenberg, No. 11,583, 
dated October 21, 188C, for a olass of goo^ termed "Medicinal 
liquor or tonic for the speedy removal of the effects of ovex^ 
indulgence in drink. The essential features of the registered 
mark are the words "Antl-Tox, the three consecutive circles, one 
shaded red, with the 'f X,' the ant, and eje. • ■*» 

The marks are not identical, nor are they applied, strictly 
speaking, to the same olass of goods. There is, however, a certain 
resemblance between them which might cause confusion or mistake in 

;^,^>^V (8SS 93B<I ,30 .loV J&Qbtooofl) .8G8I ,SS .* 

.30 mo Timim aaiATa aaiiHU 

•JblanoLofiU .L nsmoH e^tflcr xa 


,«BS^i?»v9a IsniolfcoM tot XtflM-efi/ft^T 


.108,96.011 ,8G8I ^8 easfl bellt froJ:i^BoJ:Xq<iA 

,&£tai9llqqe^ "xot ixsinrfiucrO .V .A .<itf 

fifio" IMHVA^ al^^oa lo eafiXo fi 'sot JnK--9£>A'x^ a aft , "zoTonolI* 

06 tmtemlm^ eSatBta notiBotiaqB arfT ".^osrc^xe (fntf Aob ^oot 

fABSfXX.oH rsrsecrrrolia to jErcsin--ei}fitd' Aete^sl^At toinc? 9x{^ o^ dorto 

Mniol:b9ts^ boanoi sfeo«s Ite Mtt£» s tot ^9QB1 ,XS tocTotcrO A»4iilb' 

-te^w to aJwtto orfJ^ to Xfivomst vt&Bqs Qsli ttftt olaoi to tifttrplX 

MrMiiiiiK er{4- to eoruriMft failoMae fufT .^iini' rrl BOrr<^nIxr£>rri 

•CIO «seXotio ovl^xivMKCOo eaeisict arf^ fXeS-l^fxxA" aJbto?r QT<.i et« ^taa 

«.^ltB ftrifi ^tctB Off J- ',X0 f drii- ri/*w ,Bet fcofcBrfa 
t^liiirdtt f^eiXq<IB M;«if^ a«6 ton ^Xnoi^ftef^i ioa etB ejitRtn ^liT 
rtifi^Heo b ,tev©woxf ,«1 otoriT .afioos to aeteXo maBa art* cJ' fSrrlXBectB 
fl;t tttitsiffi to xselBxjtrroo oaio ;t;{alm rioirtw o»r(;t aHil#»or MMtfcfMesat 

the mind of ths putolio or deceive careless purcliasers, provided 
both marXs were on the Market. 

It was stated at the hearing that attempts had heen made to 
discover irhet her the registered marX was now In use, and upon ay 
suggestion an affidavit accompanied by letters from leading drug* 
houses has been filed, which tends very strongly to show that the 
registered mark is dead. If this be so, it follows that there will 
be no confusion or mlstaQce In the mind of the public and that the 
public will not be deceived, The letters submitted are frcm three 
well-]aiown and leading drug-houses, in one of whicfli it la stated, 
In referring to »Anti-Iox*: *We do not know the article, and never 
heard of it and never dealt in it." A second letter states: 
"We have made inquiry among the drug-houses here, but were unable 
to find the article called 'Antl-Toz*. It was In this market some 
years ago, but has now gone out of use." A third letter states: 
•We do not know of the article incpiired for, and although we have 
made inquiry concerning it among the trade here, have failed to 
elicit any lT]iformatlor\. « 

In view of the circumstances, the differences In the marks^ 

the differences in the articles to which they are Intended to be 
applied, and the registered mark seemingly having been used but to 
a small extent and being now unknown to the trade, I am Inclined to 
give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, and therefore re- 
verse the deolsla|ii of the esarainer. 

, (Signed) C. H. Duell, 

September 27, 1898*^ Commissioner, 


bebtviytq , rxeasriorrx/cr aeolat/jo avieoefi 10 oJtIcfiixq ©rt* to batm erf* 

.i^eXiBor erii ao etcew aXiBw rl^ocf 

•1 fliMi neecT bBtl atqsmite. iBili ^tt&eti etii ^b b&tB^B esw tl 

YW ftocTxf i)nB ,ORn nrl won rbtt Xnnai he-xe^aJtse-i: erf* terC*»rilr lavooalt 

"SxrxJb sxil&fieX iHDic^ 8Ttt**oX Yd b9tcm<mooeB ilVBtttlB ctB nottB^tgfm 

erf* *Brf* worfa 0* •?Iaaoi*8 -^av afirre* rfoirfw ,fialll rtoecf aarf ee«irorf 

Illw erterf* *arf* awoIXo^ tl ,oe od alrf* 1:1 •AseJb al XrsBot fcote^alaont 

iMf* i«f{* briB ollGtuq erf* I0 bxtln etti ctt ajiatBta rco nclacflnoo on od 

oo*tri* moil OTB Jbe**lflKltrat eneitei sriT .fcevieoet- ocf ton iXiw cJXcfirq 

fl)€>*B*a al *1 rfolrfw lo eno rtl ,BQAtfSMhaifx& [yrHl—iif ioi £nron:>[-XXew 

•xdrerr baB ^eiottiB arf* wortX *oxt 06 eW* :»xoT-l*nA* o* snlTxelert nl 

! «e»*«*» rwit^ol *m«>©8 A » . *i rtl: *Xbo£> «eMMS fcrcB ii 1:o J^ioerf 

©XcfBoxr atew *i.fcr ,9ft9A «a«fad-awTr^ erf* shootb xTsJ^iipftl di>e« everf ©W» 

fHM iejiii '* rrJ; asw *I .'xoT--i*nA' BbIXb© Aleli^icB ©rf* fcrti"* oi 

•«>iM4M»'4IMufoX Mlrf* A " ,9Bv lo tuo <»iSQs wort aBif *<>«( ,osb aisoY 

•v«if ©w fit3J»orC*iBt^ai jtol fis^iirpftl eXol^^B srf* ^o worrf *on ob eW" 

«rf^ at aeofnnel'SttA otff* fattfilwawie oK* lo weJ;v nl 

•tf 0* be£>ne*rrX 9W^l^ltAt rtottfw o* eeXol#T0 arft rrJt acioa9*ce^'3tit atf* 

o* *trcr f>«ax; rteed gniverf ■^Xartlcioea X^»in f>?ne*Ri39T erf* fcrtB ,69lXqcfB 

o* kmtXlmU m I ^SibB^c* ori* o* evnocaUm won arrlocf fens *flO*xa Ilsfffa £ 

-•1 ffMl^ned* bOB ,*rtfloiXq»» «rf* «# ttfirob ori* la *l'5t«»<i erf* evla 

««MWlilPB)cA nrf* 4^c niolsiosft orf* ea'iov 

,xio«a .H .0 (benaia) 


Ex parte Cole Maraxfaoturlng Company. 

Trade-Mark for Heating Stovef5. 


Application for registration filed May 3, 1898, 110.55,711. 

Messrs. Munn & Company for applicant. 

Applicant petitions from the action of the examiner in re- 
fusing to register the v/ords "Cole's Original Hot Blast" as a 
trade-raarX for heating stoves. 

"Decision of examiner affirmed." 

(Cigned) A. P. Greeley, 
Acting Commissioner. 
Septem.ber SO, 189B. 



.YnaqmoO artltjrJ-OfilxrrtBu eloO Qit&y xK 

.eovocfa 3fri.c^B9^ sol Xrcf>M-oI)BiT 


,IIV,?.a. oil ,8681 ,o vbM balfi nold'Btifalso'i 107. cwiiBotLqqA 

.JrcfioilqcTB 101 vffBqnioO A cmsM .RiaaeM 

-e-s rcl lenim&xo oriJ- 1o rtoiJ-OB orfcf moil enoiilieq ^riBolIq-qA 
B BB "^afiia ^oH iBfclaJtiO a'oIoO* al>iow erii tf^eisoi oJ anlax/i 

•♦ .JbamJtYif, lertiniBxo "io noiaioed" 

^vbIootO .q .A (feortalO) 
.•senoJiaaJ-prnoO ^xriJ-oA 

.riROr ,05 todnet: 

S^pt. 27, 1898. (Recorded Vol. 05. page 246) M. H, 


Ex parte Allaert H, Henderson. f\ 

Trade-Mark for IJedioal Compound, ^ 

k I. 

iv;-,.v.v Rr-rr.A ny i v^f? j ,-;At,-^ Pet It lon, ^utfi pf the artiole nc 

Applioation for registration filed March 29, 1898, No. 55,490, 
I/tessrs, Lyons « Blssing for applicant, nmetr 

Which ""^^ o^r URO. 

Pron the refusal af the exaiainer to register the words "Kid 
Nee Kure" as a trade-raarX for a remedy for Kidney and analogous 
diseases, applicant petitions, and his decision presents a clean- 
out question for decision. That question Is: Can a purely de- 
scriptive phrase, no)|i otherwise registrable, TDeoome so lay mis- 
spelling the words bf the phrase and misplacing capitals? 

Qi^, In the clever and carefully prepared brief presented In behalf 
of the applicant, it is admitted that the phrase Is descriptive, 
a:¥i4,. therefore not registrable in itself, but that by reason of 

what IB torraeld its "oharactf6ristio fanciful spelling" it presents 

a distinctive, appearance to the eye, and therefore, that the action 

of the exarainfjr in refusin^i; registry was 4n error. 

; nt«4 In 

The prep/entatlon of t}\e affirmative of the issue by appll- 

cant's attorneys ds far frotn convincing, and no adjudicated case 


^ ' .no8tof>nHH .H iiodlA ec^ifio; _xg 




.fcmroqmoO IboI^oM ioI 3tir.M-ofci^iT 


-HBoIo r, ec^noao'.q noialoe^ alri fcnB ,a^olcrUeq ^HBolIaqB ,aeaBe.U 

-aim ^ oa eMOoed ^oIcfB-r^alaot f»alwiertc^o *on ,eaB-r[q ovi^q^-Hf 
Tal.scrlqBO srtloBlqaln £nB o^B^riq eri^ 1^ efciovr erfcT mi^^^^<^ 

,ovttql'r.oe,e>b al BaBTriq ericf ctBric^ f,ocr;tlnf)B ai .ti ,crn\t.oiIqqB ericf ^ 

acHToaetq ^i- -^f ^^-qa Ixz-ilonBl oJ:crr,iiec^oBiBrio" a;^i ^Wmo^ »^ ^^^^ 

nolcroB ericr d-sri^ o'xo'ia'.ori;^ bnB ,oYf. ertj^ o4 BonB-sBeqqB ovi^oni.+ -^'- =^' 


-ilcLCTB Yd rujRa/ xo evicfBrwiTlB etH lo rtotiBim^r^^'^''' ^^^'^ 

. on br.r. ,3/rtn^lvrTor) r^o i1 tBl at- a^en'^O'^*^ a'- 

sustaining the position is called to iny attention, ViOille it Ib ., 
doubt loss true that letters and words In some Instances way fee 
combined to, .:f^;rai, ,a trade-iaaf:Js:., ,yet there is an exoe^^t,lc^ F^oJv y 
must not be lost sieht of, and that ; JUi,, that the letters or words 

^°;J9^Hm'^M%Mh,i^.'^^:^ a word,^93::_..pjira^^p ^^9?^M-M.MJ^.? 
ordinary sense or Indicating an attribute of the article not 
equivalent to^o's^i^fhlj?, or origin. Jhe gen^fj^^j^il^gj^^.i^ a^^i^,t„ 
appropriating mere v/ords or phrases as.,^ trade-raarX, and the ex- 
ception appj^^p^ only to .s\^p,,.ef,.lT^<^Q^%<^ o.rJ^i^Ci^^X owners^ p^^.|tfi^a 
which do ncit in any sense refer to quality p^r use. 

It has been formerly held by this office that descriptive „_ 

words in a foreign language, having an English significance, are' 

ya-ztuKen ha^e cveri i^aae wi 
not registrable. Ex parte Lawr^no^4,4f. Co, ^, J^^t^ nA^^^ ^w<?^f ■ 

also been held that a misspelled descriptive word Is not regis- 
trable,,, ^E^_^2S£iSK^i:Pi!rWig» -4 O.G. , 098jQ 
jy The United Staties Supreme Court, In' Goodyear' s &c. Co. v, 
Goody©^ te/..'?fi?» ^^ W.n., 598, in holding that the designation 

"Goodyear Rubber Company" was not subject to exclusive appropria- 

,, , ' iuell. 

tion, said: ; \ 

"Any use ofiienis of ^liiilar import, or any abbreviation of 
them, must be A^like free 16 all persons." 

I cannot concede for a moment that if the phrase "Goodyear 

/ :'■ : 

Rubber Comp^^ny,* ^nisspelled and presented in fanciful characters, 

had been before the cc|urt for Tcrot|Oction as a trade-marX, there 

/i I I i 

ecf v^m eeo^TBc^a^ti 9rnoa nl a^iow fcaB a-xecfJ^oX J-firivt eini eBoLtduob 

rfolrfw no J: J-qooxf^ ' me »Jt ©i'>rfd- J-ov ^Xtitw-afiiv^d- b rrrrol od^ ^9^J:c(moo 

Rfc'TOw T.o atod-vtnl erf J- J-Brr;t v,t f&tli bnp, ,"^0 trtgia J-aoI ocf J-on d-aurcr 

B^l ni ovlJ-qJtioaol) saBirtq 10 i>iow 6 nrxo'i J-on d-pim jherticfinoo oa 

tort elolJ-rcB erf^ "io 9cfi/cfl'i*V;i -^i^' anlJ-fiol^nl 10 aanoa viBnlfiio ' 

^artlfisB aJ: oI;n iBionea exfT .rtlalio rto. cjlriaienwo oi J-nelRvlirpe 

-xe oriJ- iinfi ,XiBin-ofifiid' f? aB aaeBiriq 10 Bbtov^ oton: anlJ-BiiqoitqqB 

fine , qlffaiormo lo ftialto od-BoJtfcnJ; ae riox/a o^ yJCho aollqqs rtoi-tqeo 

.9ai; 10 vj^ilBirp ocf rtoloi ©artoa ynB nJ" J'on oi) riolrfw 
oviiqJiioarjfi J-BrfJ- eoillo airtit vd £)i6ri vX-ionnot neB(J'Bflri'#l 
o':rR ^oonBol'iinala rfallsna: ne anlvBrt ^esBXJBaBl 1131919*1 s nl a£^iow 
HBrf dl .SOI ,.0,0 Gi ,,00 aS eonfviwBJ oJiB? xlK .oIcfBi^BlaaT J-on I 
-algort ' ;fbh al fciow ovld-qlioaeh feoIXeqaeim b cferfcf Midr! i*9ec[ oelfi 

.008 ,.0.0 :^S .nrrJIgJX ediBcr. \xa .oIcfBrtd' 


.V .on ■ .p:5i, R«rrfi9^ooO nJ: ,cl-'iXTon offiBtq/ra aeisiJ'S Bet>i/STlT eriT 

ao/^Bfcs^aolN orf* ;rBrf* anlBXorf rrl ,80? , .a,t| BSX , .OP .a|!S •sBeY£>ooO 

-«/*fcrorrqqB oviairXoxa oJ ^ooQci'jra J-oft sbw "Yrraqnrcio •stuicTjjH tBev^ooD" 

:f5iBa fixoti 

'^<r nolNtBlvarrcfrfi^-'^ir' 10 ,cfioqnii tBllra.;: xu trrjuj i,<.. ^'^u v.iA« 

".anoatoq XIb o;t- ef=*tJ. nXJtXJ^ ncf d'ainn ^rrtorf^ 

iBovhcoO" oaBt/fq arf* Ii ;tBr(-J inotnofi b tol afjoonoo c^onnBO I 

faieJ-oBiBrfo LsfitoriBl nl fcoJ-nopatg fins AeXIoqaalm "j^jfikq^^oo lecfcTi;? 

01erfc^ ,XiBFr-of)BiJ B aa noi^oei-toiq ^o1 ^ij/bo Qtli e>to\\:9d n99o' fjBr: 


would have boen any different ooncluslon arrived at than that the 
words were not subject to protection as a trade-mark. If the 
court had protected the designation it would have been under the 
theory of unfair competition in business, and not because the 
misspelled designation was the subject for lawful trade-nark. 

The particular spelling of the word "Kid Nee" and the mis- 
spelling of the word «Kure» cannot, in my opinion, make the com- 
bined words registrable, it Is urged on behalf of the applicant 
that this office has commonly registered such marks. In ex parte 
Lawrence ec Co., supra , the Commissioner pertinently said: 

"The attorney in his brief has referred to a number of regis- 
tered trade-marks as being equivalents of the ones now presented, 
and argues that because they were registered his must be. This 
proposition is not agreed to. If mistakes have been made in the 
practice of the office it is high time they should be oorrectevd. " 

With equal force it was said in ex parte Kipling, supra : 

"neither an applicant nor the public should be misled by the 
action of this office in accepting and registering ^vords, signs, 
or symbols as trade-marks which are clearly not such. " 

The decision of the examiner Is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


October 4, 1890. 


eriv+ T:I .XtBm-e^jfii^ s rb nol^oo^oiq o;J- J-ootcfue ton srrew afciov/ 

9riv+ Tobm/ rroftcf ovBrt Llirow J"! rrol^J-BrrstsE^^ erf* be:foetof:q bBit tttsO't 

e>ri.t 9«jrB0f)cf ten' br^ Ihs^ntWi^ t^"hot.f^f.t^^<^ iiB?-.m; lo vft^rfl^ 

.jtiBrr-o^Bid" Ir/^twBl tol J-petcfira erf J- r6w rtoJtd-Brts-f ?<€»£> fiollecjaaini 

-«/n eriJ- f^HB "sew fiiX" htow erfd- "Ito srrtJfi^a iBlij-oJ'J'iBqr eriT 

-pioo f>rfv+ B^m ^notntqo Xtn cti ,*oftnBO "fiti/X-" btovr orid- "io artlirocfe 

^fjXBo'i'IqcTB orf^ *io *ilBrff)a no l^og-c;; "^f'^^ '";^T^a'i?'t^'gii3eT afctow borrlcf 

e^'SBcr xo rrl .PTtiBm rimre fcoieJ'RiseT: vXrtoinrrTOo SBri ooJTio aJ-rft ;J-Brfd' 

:MBr vl^nenld-ioq lerfolnnlirftrtjllv^ orfj' « Bicrpr , .oD r"^ oorrewfii 

-Rlaort ?:o 'secTrnxrc b ocf Jbomo'ioi eBri "iolicf a iff rrl' yarrxo^^B eriT*' 

,£e»tnoRoiq won aofTo erfJ- lo aJ^nolBvlj/po aniecf aB aXiBxrt-e^BiJ^ beieJ' 

alriT ,ecf .tajjirr airi BoieJ'ai^O'r otew verft eaxrBoecT tBrid' aexrstB JbnB 

eriJ' ni efiBW neocf evBri aeXBct-alm II .oct- I>eei3B J- on ei. nottlBoqotq 

" .Jfintoortofi otf fcljroriR vt^rfir ontd- rfsirf ai \fi eolYio ©!<*• lo eold-OBiq: 

i Btqi/n ,3nJ: 

o-ti B^cr xe ni f^.i:B8 rbtt d^i eotol iBxrpe riJ-lW 

eriv+ vo'^ ftnlaJTrt ocf fclxrorfa of tcfircr "^rf* ion inBoilrTfTs hb tori^loH* 

,Rn3J:n ,af)iov srclneJ-Blaoi l>nB 3nlj-qeooB nl eoJtIlo alri;)- Tto noi^oB 
" .rfo/ra ton vitrBfTio otB rffiirW a:>f•IBm-ol)B•rc^ tb aXocfrrtva 10 

.bf^trntJ.J.B ai: teiTtfiiBTce ?»riJ! J.o noiaioefc eriT 

,IXoxja ,H .0 (f>Bn3ia) 

,0081 ,1^ lecfotoO 

I . 

(Recorded Vol. C5, page 252) '^^^ 


Ex parte Laratoertvillo Rubber Company. 

Trade-Mark for Rubber Boots and Shoes, 


Application .for registration filed July 19, 189B, ITo. 56,204. 

Mr. James L. IJorris for applicant. 

Applicant petitions from the action of the exaiainer in refus- 
ing to register the word "HITOP" as a trade-mark for rubber boots 
and shoes, (, 

"On the authority of ex parte Henderson and the cases referred 


to in that decision, dated October 4, 1098, the decision of the 
examiner of trade-marks is affirmed, " 

October 4, 1B98. 

(Signed) C. II. Duell, 








'.; Commissioner. 


i' 1 



] '■■ 


/ < 

(S3S GSficr ,50 .XoV bBbioc-QK) 

.vfrr.crinoO tPxSdtrF, ollivj-iocf.rtifij scfiBq xH 

.eooria bciB aJ-oocl lecftfx/H iCi X'i«k-e£>fi'xT 


.J^OS,aa.olI ,oeai ,GI vIx/T, beiri no/^si^alaei •xo'i nol^solIqc[A 

,;trtBoiIcrqi^ tol pItioTT .J cr.jTiBL .liJ 

o^^cocf •secfcfiri lol :>riBm-8fcB'«:d- jr as "<IOTIH" f)'xow 9x1^ ne^elaer od" gni 


©rf.+ 10 notsiio&b erid- ,8G8I ,^ locfoJ-oO botf^b ^noisinob isd^ ni of 

* .bemt'i'isi eJ Si}liif\ct-obr.7.i to -xonirriBxi 

,j.xexfa .II .0 (fconnia) \ 

i i 

' .8681 ,:^ nodoleO 

\ " 


Ootober 11, X898. (Recorded Vol. 65, page 297) M. p. 


Ex parte Curt loo Brothers Company, ira- o 

Trade-Mark for Pao3cagod Pood and DrlnX ProduotB. 

r'jjjtit JiJ^'.- Petition. ^"^ 

Application for registration filed Aiigust 1, 1898, No. 50,278. 

Mr. A. 17. Harrison for petitioner. 

_lW,ri^.^*o.«.. . •-.x.^v.^r 


Applicant petitions fron the action of tho oxaralner in refus- 
ing to register the T^ords "Blue Label" on a generally bliie field 
as a trade-mark for canned soups, fco. Tho rofiisal is hnsed upon 
the grouTid thatji the wo^->ds "Blixe Label" on a generally blue field - 

are incapable rjif exclusive monopoly, being descriptive of the 
color of the l?i;be'l whicsh is applied to the goods in question. 

It is o/i>ncedrj)fl by applicant that it hss no exolnsive right to 
use a blue l?^ibel (upon Its goods. Tho principle is' well established 
that "the color ofeT a label, wrapper, capsule^ or paclcagn alon e 
\«>«i»ot,:be pi'olj.e'oted as a trade-mark." (20 Atn. ^ Eng. Enc. of Law, 

pages 245 - ^s0Q. ) 

' * \ 
If %^,% rjlg^^t to use labels uToon articles of ooianerce Is vested 
' 1 
in\ tire public, r cannot see hov.- they can be deprived of the right 

I i9\>rint \vt>6xi fiJuoh labels words descriptive of the color of the 

f \ \ 

(VGS 93Bq ,30 .loV bQb'j.ooaR) ,308L fLL ledioioO 

/ .vrTfiqrTfoD e10f[c^C1^I BoiituO eJifi-i .xK 


":^x ■ — 

,OVS,0?..oH ,8G8I ,1 d-ax/auA iioli;^ noi^Bi^tglaGi lol ctot&BoiLqqX 

.tenottlioq toJ. iroai'ST.BH .F .A .1 

rr .f" '"r,, '^T.. tones & no "IocTbJ Dx/XfT* Rfc":ow orfd- vfrid" finxrois 9x1.+ 

^♦rfJ' to ovtfqt-noBCih 3fri9cf ,YioqonoM oviBX/Ioxe "^'P olciRqBoat e-*. 
.noJ-d-Rftx/p • ^ -v^oos ofio o-:^ £)OiI:rq^ nl xfoirfv' iMf-! r ■^-f "'•r "^Afn; 
o^ Mait ovjfRxrloxo OiT asrt *i iedt J-nfiPilTrqc vcf &f|fcoon(!»c ei ^I 
br^ttpJ.Zrj^^:''^ . rro.r- .. ;:.,x o.^xiT orfT .af.003 ail noqsi ZadJp^L ©irlcf « ^"f; 

OfucTf, rj3«^xoxsc- -TO ^oluBqBO .t&crcTBTfr ,XficfBX B 1!^ loXoo erf;}''' J^^^fv+ 


nrf:v -^.n 'rnro^ r. v; '^n -■•.!• + -!:tof>of) a^-sow alocfsl rfoxuc ..OvVix +-'■•*'• c.i 

''.o\wt Ir. ^rlng to the teira n- 

label. Of course In no doins, they nur-jt not initatn tho paoXages, 

labels, &c. , of a rival, no as to unlawfully deprlvo him of his 
vested rights or defraud purchasers by loading theiti to bellove 

V V,- 

that they are buying the goods made by another. The. remedy f oi'' o 
ot the ooJOi* of the t- ,6a frojfi 

siVoh TTrong, however. Is ?v'lth the ooiirts, and ir> not based on any 
trade-mark rights, but rather on tho theory of unfair competition 
in business, -'i"'0"i i*-'!© t- objootloa of the Q©ar . 

It appears that applicant has, in the past few years, In- 
oreaBed its sales to a most reTiarXablo extent, and it presents a:^o 
case that wo\ild Induce me to grant the petition, if it -vrere well 
fotmded in la^r; b\it unfortunat'^iy the. authorities are substantially 
against its oontention. ^^^ to be con- 

My attention has not be. n called to- any oa'se where any court 
has sustained a trade-iaarX consisting of words dosoriptlve of the 
label placed upon articles of cownerce, I heve found one cane, 
however, where a former Acting Coimnlsslorxr held that as green 
labels had not theretofore been employed upon packages of thread, 
lind as the then applicants were the first to use either the green 
labels dr-the words descriptive thereof, they were entitled to reg- 
ister the words "Green Label Thread, " The decision in not sus- 
hi oh ^^i-l" .].e V 

tained by any authorities, nor do I consider the reasoniiig sound. 

The N^w York Court of Appeals, in Pisoher et al v. Clank, 
\S^ H. E. R^P* » 1040, held that ^he term "Black Package Tea" was 

,8a3fiXo«q niii nic^itrl .tea .ru-: t-';^' ,3ftJ:o.b r- -r Ba-xroo 10 .locfBl 
atri to fliiri qvitqf^ vlliflwfilm/ o^ afi oe flfivJtT s lo , .oiS ,8lea'sl 

•io^ vfcGPifti Off? .lerf^oftf: vj afjsn «f)003 ftrft gnlx^a ene, y:eiii fsAt 

•^R ne l)oaBc( d^orr rI fcris ,8inirco edt rfJ-iw si ^loveworC ,aftoiw rioi/a 

fiol^ld^eanioo tlB'iffXT lo y^oerii- oAi rco leri.tfli cfj/cf ,a;J^f(3J:'r ;[-ii}m-o£Bto 

.eaefiJtei/cf rti 

e aJnoaeiq .M fcfis ,d'neJ-xe oiuis^CiBnoi J^aorr e o;f a9lf.a ad-l l>eaB9io 

Hew 9inw i? "ii ,noJti-lJoci vitii inBt:} oi ^laBCtTtat bZvo'w ^Riii qbbo 

•^IXaicJ-ftRcrKox/c; b'lij e.9l Ji'iofiJ'jJB nrf^ \'XfOvr£aij^'io''im; iiSQ ;rf>I ni tebru;oi 

.aol;riTf:ifTOO tit d'anlBS* 

;fi;roo vmj oiBrtw sbbo ^nB Oif LsXIbo rif-acf ^on aeri rtoiJ'aojJB ■'iit ••? 

erf;*' to f^vlc^qitoanfc aJbtow to ^xtid-Blarroo XiBM-O-bBiu b fjAniflJ-ai/a asi^ 

jOri^o ono iimrol evari I .Qoiomcr lo aoXoiJir, noqif i;e>OBlq XacfBy 

fbBf)ir[i tc &'>sf.^OBq noqi; f)«\o ' .Taao. ototo Setoff d- .tofr bcri alodisf 

aonng erfj- lorfitle oair oJ- ^ailt ■^rfj- diott aJ-nsolXqqa jferfJ- «rf4- rb 6frif 
-aa** oJ- t:9j;*j;;trt9 oiaw 4B»fit* i^too-tiiriJ 'avij-qiioaofc efiio-;? oric ro axouBr^ 
-ax/a J-orr rJ: nolaloofi orfT " .f>i^;->iffT X9a'BJ noeiO" Siintr 'vrd- i 1 
•fcnxrca 3x^fJtfioa«©T oxlJ- 'isjxanoo i oir; ion ,atil^iT:orf^a» "tcb rci aiuilsJ/ 
»XnBXa .V Xb v+o larfoail itJ: ,aXy?»qqA to J-tuoO jtioY w>II erfT 
.. . ■ "B8T f»3eXor,q .-{OBia" rrrxoj orf:f ^ari;^ i>Xeri fOi'OL » .T^H . ..a 9 -^l 

not a valid trade-mark. The court in referring to the term said: 

"It manifestly has reference either to the quality of the 
article, or the color oi the paoXage in which it is sold. In 
either case it cannot be made the subject of individual appropria- 
tion. If the adoption of a package of a particular form or color 
cannot confer any proprietary right to Its use, it Is difficult to 
perceive how the assumption of a jiamo which is simply descriptive 
of the color of the package can be lawfully protected from use by 
others. « 

It Ib evident from the quotation that if the word "Tea" had 
been omitted from the term, the objection of the court would not 
have been removed, for in that case the court would have said - 
"It manifestly has reference « « to « « « the color of the package 
in which it Is sold." Substituting the word label for "package" 
what is there said would apply exactly to the present case. 

The authority quoted seems go me to be controlling, but even 
in the absence of authority, the mark here sotight to be registered 
cannot, in ny opinion, be a lawful trade-mark. 

My attention has been called to the fact that a few years 

ago the office granted to applicant a certificate of registration 

for the words "Blue Label. " If that trade-mark is valid, applicant 

will not suffer any Injury by a refusal to register the pi^esent 

mark. If, on the other hand, it is an Invalid mark, I fall to see 

how the words "Blue Label" vrtien llialted to their use "on a gener- 
ally blue field"- which brings out more clearly the descriptive 
quality of the words - can be valid. 

The decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 
October 18,^ 1898, Commissioner. 


nl .|>Xoa ej; ii rfoJtriw n,£ ©s^^ox^ci arfJ xo loloo erf J" i©^,©Iold-iB 

-fiiicToiqcifi iRsibtvlbnt lo J-oetcli/t^ OiiJ' 9f>finr ecf ior^riBo it oa^o lOriJ'le 
noloo -so mto'}. ifilxroJtJ^ifi^i b 'io egsXo/^q r, "xc aoJ;J^q:oI>B erfd' 11 «jiol^ 

oJ- ilj:;oJ:'Jt'iJ:£» si. il ,6ax; aJ-Jt oj- irfrili Yifi^QJttqo-xq ^jc^b •xo'inoo d-oanso 
ovi^^^i'IO«ei) vlgnusaJ; riolrfw oi!fc»xi: a "io fcol^^qnu/aes edi vrori ©vi:9one<x 
•\£d SBi; noil bQiceiotq y-CIj^wbI 9cf rrso assXoBq Qrii 1o toXoo Qrlt lo 

» .eneriio 

£>iBff «B9T" i)iow 9rit ai -^Brt^ aoii-i^^^Qxjp aril OTOfjl taebive bI^I,:, 

J-on I)Ij;ow J-nj/oo orid' 1o noidot^u'-''-' ^J^a ,rnn9;f" 9rfd Pioi'i fceJ^tiiwo xi99cr 

--A^Be evfiff feXirow ^tiioo Brief aeBo *Bri^ oi lol ,fc9vonftif nsecf 9VBri 

eaeXof-q eri^ 'io loloo arid' » * » .Q;4^iii'..#' ooneioloi asri yldafitiriBM ilf* 

3filS^:}ioRq" lO'Jt XepBl fc'sow ori^T 3nJ:d'ir:tJ:,tpcfi/o » .fcloa P.i Ji xfclriw ai 

.08BC d-fteeeiq €wW oct vX^osxo vLqffj^-,ijfiirov! bi^a eiorfd j-J: d/srfw 

nevo d^jjct ^anllloidTioo ycf od- em oJ 8/n:9e>B beioup Y^lnoridxfB eriT 

bfnoiBf.'QQ'i 9n od drfat/oe oiori >tT6m ©rid' jYdiiorld'jj'B 1:0 oorffiacfB orid- nl 

,ji'SBcr-©£>BT:»r Xii^wbI js ea ^nolnlJO ^ci fii f^fomiBC 

, aifisv wel fi J-i^rlJ &os1 Qsii od i^ollfio ftef>d aBri rtotir^oiia pi^ 

noiid'fc'xd'aiaei ^o frd-sol il jtoo & ia£.oi.£qqR oi b&irtst:^ ©oillo arid" 03B 

^fnp.olXqqr, ,i>xXBV ai j£'tBjtfl--t)jDBid- d-srld- "il » .XecfBJ ejjXa" aJaiow arid- lOt 

diisiioi^q axl^ loJeiacn o# ■XBairie's 6 yd Yi-^L^i Y«6 m&TjLus ton XXiw 

e^a OJ- Ltf'^l I ,;>C'£Bm JbiX^vril nr> e.i it ^bctBti 'ietiio etli it© ,11 .^rwiTn 

--srifcos B xio^ SBis -Ttiorfd- od- i)0^fj:iiiix neriw "XocfBJ 9i/Xa» «Jbiow ari^ wo|f 
BYt.iqt'ioee>b orid- Y-Ci^oJ^o aiom d^jt/o a^nlncf riolrivr -"i>XoJ:t e;;Xcf Y-f^Sy 

.JblXBV ©cf rcBO - ai)iow erid- lo y^J^Xbup/ 
.La/TrrlllB si "rBnlfTBxo ©rfd- 1c rroJirlo"/^ erfT 

,XIo;/a .H .0 (ibenaia) 
.•swroiealirflrtoO ,6081 ,8X i9o'oc'©C 

Oot. 21, 1898. (Reoorded Vol. 65, page 310) 


vim? of th: 

Ex parte A. Werner & Co. 
■ fv. o;.- i^tiaxi i«i not »n to , 

rr?fTl3t"r?.T::io. hnt ass to Trade-Mark for Wines. 

the teatiireB sliown ii: ©nti 


rT-".~T±ii&l f-;^tnraK 't ■■ -■■ \ :' . ^';T\<yr itm.r'k as to have ^ 

Application for registration filed March 25, 1898, no. 55,449. 

rAT-P^j . flTt.Thrjiir-T- ■')f Ita f.-^^.t. -•'-■:-, arr; not contain'-; , 
Mr. Frederick B. Keefer for appellants. 

This is an appeal from the decision of the examiner of trade- 
tf t .©red raarKe s held that the re 
mai^s refusing to register as a trade-inark for wines the figures 

«1» and "S" arranged respectively above and below a dividing line 
formed by the rays of a shooting star. 

The references are the registrations of Kunkelmann, No.8,9G3, 
dated December 27, 1891, and No.22f,348, dated December 27, 1892. 
Each of these registrations shows a star with rays extending down- 
ward therefrom, substantially like the device of the appellants. 
The registered marks do not contain the numerals 1 and 2 and the 
appellants contend that this difference distinguishes their mark 
from them and renders it registrable thereover. They hold that 
since the numerals themselves are arbitrary and properly regle- 
trable as a trade-mark, they are no less so because accompanied 

\ .T.S.2 (015 Q36C[ ,33 .loV ftofiiooefl) ,8681 ,IS .*oO 


.aoiTio TnaTAq 53itat3 oaTim; 



.00 & lexTToW .A e^'TB? xa 

.senlW lol XifiM-fliiBiT 


.eM,33.olI ,8C8I ,5S ifoifiX bslll XToJt;t 61 ;f 8^361 nCi rrol^fso-tlq^lA 

.airiBlIeqqB 10I leteeX .a XoinaLoi^ .nU 

-a&sn^ lo tenlflifixo edi to nolaloeb erfJ- mo^ IseqqB ha b1 airfT 
Baiwgll Qtit aerriw tol XiBM-^fcfitd' « sb le^aJiaarr o* 3Cfl8i/l9i aXiBia 
oat I ^Ibtvlt B wolecf fcrts ©vocfB vZoytsoe>qaei fcesTrBiiB "S5* fins "I" 

.if.*8 arrJtcfoorfa b ^0 btebi oriJ^ Ycf Jbenrrol 
,goe,8,oll ,nnfiiitreXrttrX "io anol^Biielaei erij eiB aoortei&^ai sifT 

•8981 ,va lacfjaeoaa beiBb ,8*S,SS.oH Jbrrs ,1681 ,VS tetitmo&Q. betBb 

-mptt) 3nl6no*x9 bybi ri^Jtw iB^a s aworfa anoJ.t6i^8la*i eaexf;^ ^o riofia 

.aJT£BlIeq<iB arfJ- "io eotvob adi qML yllBli^nBifadxra ,0ion'iei9ffi^ Mbw 

eri^ fififi S bOB X alsieiw/n ori^t niBi^noo ioa. ob aXisci l>©te^alsei erfT 

Jfisju liari^r aedalxj-snJtc^ali) eonetellifi alriJ- iRiit baeiaoo sinBllQqtiB 

iBtii fclort Y^ffT .lovoe-teri^f oXcfBi^alaei ii eiefcnsi JbxiB merfJ' mo-fl 

-algort -^Iieqcrq bns YiBiJ-IcfiB e-x* aavXMiiiefU' Blsiomrxn QriJ- eortia 

fceins<jfflOOOB e&jjBoecT oa aaaX on et» x&Ai , Xifim-oLBti^ b bb oXcfBi^t 

by the shooting star. 

This view of the case is not the proper one, however, sinoe 
the question is not as to whether some featxire of the marX is 
registrable, but as to whether the entire mark including all of 
the features shown is registrable. If in its entirety or its 
essential features it is so nearly like a prior mark as to have a 
tendency to mislead or deceive the public, it should not be regis- 
tered, although some of its features are not contained in that 
mark. Ex parte Kaufmann & Blache, 84 0. G. , 145. 

The shooting star being an essential feature of this and also 
of the registered marks, it is held that the resemblance is such 
as to deceive the public and therefore registration must be re- 

The decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

(Signed) A. P. Greeley, 

Acting Commissioner, 

now Assistant Commissioner. 

October 24, 1898. 

.rsiB ani^ooria erf* xcf 
eonla ^-cavewori ,eno logotq erfif ,fojrt pJ eeso art J' "io woiv aixfT 

al ^iBm eri* lo €tvjiBe1 Qiaoa t^ciied'^ o& bb ton ai noi^aoup ariJ^ 

lo 1Z» snJtJbirlorrt Xiflja ertJt^trift odd letitdtiw oi aa iud ,9XcfBiJ^alsei 

a^Jt 10 Y^atl^tne aJ-l nl II .elcfsi^faiaei al mrorfa aoti/^Bel etti 

B 9VBri o* aB Xtsm loliq s eXJtl -'cIiBen oa al il estxr^sft^ IbI J-nsaae 

-aiaa-s scf !*©n jM;/orfa d'J: ,olIdirq: eifJ^ pvieoeJb no bselBlm o^ Yorf©^^9^ 

^Brf;^ ni fcanlBd^iToo J^orr ©tb antj/i-Bel Bit 1o emoa rfsrrorfJ'lB ^AeiQ^ 

.3*-I ,.0.0 ^8 ,eriOBia A nxiBcftufiX eJiBg; x3 .XtBm 

oalB fifCB eirfi^ lo eiirJ-Be't IbI Jrreaae rm anlod iB^a aniJ^oorfa orfT 

ifox/a ai sonBlcfrieRBT ©rii d'BXf;^ bleri ai *! ^aXtfim fcaieJ^aiaei ecit 1o 

-;"»•; od Kfairm noi J'fiiialaei eto^eierfJ' fcns olIcTi/q sri^ evieweb ot bb 


.fcOflnJt^B 81 iQixtmsxe etit lo xiolaioeJb oxfT 

.•xonolaalrarrioO ;^nfi^aleaA won 

.8681 ,^ idcro^dt 

(Recorded Vol. C6, Page S62) 

warlc aa » whoi.f ~— — *r>?ir>.>>l 

Ex parte Lewis Golden. 

Trade-JlarX for grousers, 

: -.'^--A^* <^. H» I>u«ll, 


Applloation fori-Ggistration Tiled Pel)ruary 5, 1008, No. 55,075. 

1/iessrB. FisX Sc Thomas for Appellant, 

This is an appeal from the action of the oxamlner in refiislng 
to register the phrase, "99 Cents A Leg," In connection with the 
representation of a pair of pants, as a trade-inark for lro\i&t',rfi, 

"So far as the representation of a pair of trousers is oon- 
cemed, it falls within the well-settled nile that a syinbol or sign 
which others have the equal right to use cannot he appropriated 
as a trade-mark. Canal Co. v. Clark, 15 Wall., 311; Pratt <^ 
Farmer, 10 O.G. , 86C. 

"The phrase '99 cts a Leg' is eqiially object ionalole. Not only 
is the phrase advertising In character tout it is descriptive. 
In other words, it means that applicant's price for trousers is 
$1.98. Ex parte Parker. Holmes & Co., 64 Ms. , 129; nx parte Gang. 
^' S6 m, , 4GG, 


.ne^lov) aJtwo,! fti>tF.-T xL'v 

,aie>Rx;o-rT lOT: jCiRM-oftBiT 


r^iHjaot rxl -enlirtBxo or« to noi^ofi artcf mot"^ If^«qq« ^ «^ ^-f^*^ 

.^-..^lO^J .r^^rnabB^o .. .b ,a^rcBq to -.i^q « ^o ..ol^B^Trro.^'.TBT 

-noo al n-jea^roi^ "io rctsq b to nolc^5*rc«aoiq«i ericT aB ib1 oP" 
nsl. ro locfnvn b ;^Br(.^ ..I.'r-x I.oX.^Ba-XI«w en'.t nlri^iw aXXB^ ^ ,f.erc^c 

A c^c^B'Jq ;XX5 , .IXbT ?.X ,XtBXO .v .00 Xb«bO .*tBni-ebBt* b aB 

.3D8 ,.0.0 OX ^lauriK* 

,Clrtc ^oM .oXQBnoii©ecdo vXXBirpe el '30ct B a*o GO BBB^rfq «rtT" 

...vJ^qitoaof. al il *mJ le^OBiBrio ni srt^al^tf^vfcB eaB-triq err.t ai 

a^ a-cc.airo'x.t ,ol ooliq a'^nBclX-TqB ^TkNcT aftaem cM ,aMow -reri^o rtl 

,.nBO ^;r^Bcr :;. jCSX , .«M *6 , ,oO A aePfXoH ^-.O^IB^ OCt-XBq X? . .GC.r# 


( Signed) C. H. Dnell, 

Cowiaiss. loner. 
November 2, i898. 

".fiVO j.P.O OX ,f(JJtpic; 9vtiscr xnt .£9t«>;J'ai'3et ecf Jon Mirorfa brxR ,XifinT 


,8G8X ,s •xecTmevoi: 

^Recorded Vol. 65, page 373) 

Ex parte JoWnston Si;' .foJmston. 

Trade-IilarX for a Medical Compoimd. 


Application for registration filed June 28, 1898, No. 55, 993, 

Messrs. R. S. & A. B. Lacey for Appellants, 

This is an appeal from the action of the examiner In refusing 
to register the phrase "One Day Cold Cure" as a trade-mark for a 
oompoxind for the oure of LaGrippe, oolds, and kindred diseases. 

To meet the examiner's otojeotion that the phrase here sought 
to toe registered Is either desoriptlve or deceptive, applicant 
has filed certain affidavits. The affidavit of the three physi- 
cians is to the effect that if oolds are treated under certain 
conditions they may be oured in one day's time. If credit be given 
to that affidavit »uoh a phrase as "One Day Cold Cure" is or may be 
descriptive. Applicant has filed his own affidavit, stating that 
the words are not meant "to imply that the medicament on which they 
are used will <j(ure a cold in one day. " If credit be given to this 
statement, applicant uses a descriptive phrase deceptively. 

(5VS 9361 f38 .loV bQbtoe^R^ 

.aonio wisTAq sktats cKRiriTtJ 

.no^arrrfot ^ noJ-anrloL eJ-xfiJ ^ jC^ 

.fim/oqnioO iBoiJbeM b lo'i jftaM-efeetT 


.see^a^.CK ,8681 ,8S enxrl, fcelit rcoic^Bi^aiae^ tol aotistitlqqh 

.adriBlIeqqA 10^ X90«J .3 .A A .2 .fl .BieaeU 

.eeafioaifi fse-ibrtiX Jbrcfi ,af>Ioo ,oqqiiOsJ I0 etuo eriJ^ 10I bnuoqmoo 

-texriq asTri* sriJ- "io ^Ivftf^iTiB erfT ,ailvBbtVtB aijs^ieo J^»I1^ asrf 

ttlBtieo 'i^bcuj h*4M^^t t^R aJbXoo 1:1 iB.rli ^ob129 stlt oi ai Bosto 

novis ocf ^Jtfceno tl ,(mti a'-'csfc oa» nl beiuo ©cf ybw •^•ffif anol^lbnoo 

firr x'Rfff 'to al "erci/O fcloO ysQ axxO" m fMBBiffq b x1oxx« ^IvaAIHb J-BrfJ^ o* 

:tBns snl-J-fi^a j^lvsfcl'ilB rwo alrf beLtl Bad rf^OfioHqqiA .evi^qiioaefc 

TE^fT^ rtotrfv fto ^nf=»«r»oJ:lv«r:T rtff* ^BriJ- "\jIqwJt oJ'" J-itsem lon 9i« af>iow erii 

Bitrii oi ftov 13 ed ^ifiaro 1:1 " .vb* boo al blcc b enst Iliw beai/ eia 

♦Xlovi^-raoaA ©•Birfq avtiqiioaaft s aaaj:; ^aBoiilcrqB ,;Ja 

he term Is, in any event, advertising in nature and falls within 
he condemnation of the decisions of this office and the decision 
f the court referred to hy the examiner. The phrase is not a 
awfal trade-mark, and it should not be registered. 
The decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H. Ihioll, 

Coimnlss loner, 

overatoer 4, 1898. 

■ ■% 

. ,on 81 eaairiq «rtT .tantr»xo art* yd o* fce^e.'*-, ituco e« to 
.h^eiBlsoi 9cl Jen 6IU0II8 *i in* ,:lwm-ebBi) Itr^Bl 
.fcanniws bJ lonimaie ert» to noUtont erti 

.8«8I ♦*> iscfmsvoW 

....f-'^J^ ^ 

I, 'KJk^A. \ 


\ '-it'. 

'^:i y K 'r- 

4 A-/"'7^.^i.,.^, 







.aoi'iio TPiaTA^ aaiATa aaTiHU 




.bsitH fexifi a^fQcjiBO TOl XisM-efiBiT 


.5Se,Se.oK ;868I ,^I aiii;T> 1>9IJ:1 noicfBiitsiaei lol cioliBOlLqqA 

aAi B«n1 iBeqqs ne 81 alriT 
"aJtBvnseS" I>iow eri* rce^alaei o^ srriaiileT nl lenlmBxe 9ri* lo rrol^oB 
-oBtijnBfli asxn ^ns aJ^oqtBo ^o eJbBis rrl6j"r90 b nol Xifim-efcBiJ' £ 8£ 
to e&Bi3 rieviq to ©liq b al eiyB-xg ifolrfw ,*n«olXqqB Qrit -^d l)9ix/J 

.©lirrX B rid^Jtw ciooX ens-r'i b noqir aevow afcooa 
88B0 ni ,991 QriJ 10 [rrtrtet erf* tol anolJ-iieq obXb ^riBoilcrqA 
aJt Jtrtfim 9rid^ lad^algei oi anlajj^ei rti T;9nlnffli9 9ff;f to noltoR oiii 

,ZBeqqB rro i9f[olBalmraoO Qrii xd bealsteuB 

airi* ai notiBtiaJts^ii ;tnB*r3 oi tanimBxe erf^ lo Xaar/lftT ©rrt* 

.Mlrf -^ci Jbe^Bd'a xXXul enoaBoi arfi" to^ noqcxq asw Mi«o 
nJ: Jbaj-Bd^a aaoafiei erii lol fiejcrti/*©*! ©cf ionnBO eel orCT* 

.V5G , .0.0 ^■S ,19VBrfT i ^J-lBq X9 
noi^jt^eq arivt fertB feeirrtlllB al •xenintBxe eri;}^ lo nolaioofc 9rfT" 

,"<C9X99lO .1 .A (I>8fl3l2) 
••xgnolaaiaiDJOO trtstBteak .msi ,XX lecfnrovcii 

(Reoorded Vol. 65, page 422) 

Ex parte Stephen Sanford & Sons. 

Trade-MarX for Carpets and Rugs. 


Application for registration filed June 14, 1898; No. 55,955. 

This Is an appeal from the 
action of the examiner in refusing to register the word "Beauvals* 
as a trade-mark for a certain grade of carpets and rugs manufac- 
tured by the applicant, which grade is a pile or plush grade of 
goods woven upon a frame loom with a Xnlfe. 

Applicant also petitions for the return of the fee, in case 
the action of the examiner in refusing to register the mark is 
sustained by the Commissioner on appeal. 

"The refusal of the examiner to grant registration in this 
case was proper for the reasons fully stated by him. 

"The fee oannot be returned for the reasons stated in 
ex partjS Thayer, 54 O.G. , 957. 

•The decision of the examiner is affirmed and the petition 

denied. * 

(Signed) A. P. Greeley, 
November 11, 1898. Assistant Commissioner. 

(6S^ eSB^ ,30 .loV befctooeH) 

.SOniO TKHTAH 33TATa OaTIUU ^^N^'/; 

.xnBqmoD f>Ie^S9iS e^iBcr xa 


.£>fi©H-fl60 3nJ:n6(lO-v95I fi lol ^ifiM-eDfiiT 


:VS,05.0M ;868I .1 *ax;3uA hein cioXiBiiBi^oi tot noi JsoilciciA 

".^oCitoJi" - nnJil orf* to aiedmm ori^ lo 
^ ni 8BW XTO^cTBi^Biaei sniaxilat ni lentfiBxe 9rf* lo rrolcToH eriT 
Xd f^sno ael^l^orf^uB art* -tehm; beitUaul ^o:. briB 3aoeao^-re» rtciniqo 
,0 ^ao^ti 3 o;f crrf3i-x nviaxrioxe «rfi *Brfi nol^laoqoiq erfT .inlrf 
o* *ri3ii evlairloxe eri^ evlvtifa vbdt antsatna a lo mol avi^orxK^aib 
ni ^f-uroo ams^qxra .3 .U erf* vcf Jbleriqi/ neod aBri ,llea*l emxt erf* 
.GIVI ,SOVI ,.0.0 5V ,.oO .3lM em/T. .v .o^. . ;->-T tesnia 
-;^ e-xCieiericr fcns ,9la'Bi«>ai3ei ocf o* XtBm-oDfit* a,{.^ nvellod I 

j>oa'x©vO'>: p/ Tonlmsxo art* "^'^ -n-ntoef^ 

,IlQua .H .0 {l>on3i3) 


.8C8X ,31 •s9cf.'n:>vo;i 


(Recorded Vol. 05, Page 43S) 

Ex parte Zlegfeld Coinpany, 
Trade-Mark for a Key-Opening Can-Head. 


Application for registration filed August 1, 1898; No. 56,273. 

Mr. Rudolph Ylin. Lotz for appellant. 

;j >».*.. • . ^ ,. 

Applioant, a flnti, seeks to register as its trade-mark the 
letter "Z* and a fac-simile of a portion of the signature of one 
of the members of the firm - "Morfoot." 

The action of the examiner in yefuslng registration was in ray 
opinion erroneous and not justified under the authorities oited hy 

'. , -■ ■ ■ r > 

V '.> .' »: ■ ■■■ - V* • 

him. The proposition that the exclusive right to a tracing or 
distinct ive form of a surname may survive the exclusive right to 
the name itself, has heen upheld by the U, S. Supreme Court in 

Singer Mfg^. Co. v. June Kfe. Co., 75 O.G. , 1703, 1712. 


I toelievfi the trade-mark to be registrable, and therefore the 

■ ■ - ,■■■ •f ■■"■■■ , ' . . , 

decision of the examiner is reversed. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 

IJovember IC, 1898. ■ 

.aoino TiGTA^ asTATa oaTimi 

.noS & rieisU .M e^^tBg x.a 

.eiBSiO lo'i XifiM-afcPiT 


.aJfisIIeqcTA lol ItrBB .A nrioT. .iM 

elcTBiXeH i>10« afctow ©ri;^ fcns , no* 

.«. <^. ^0 eo.. s« aec«s te,.i« "-I.Ca 3.Ue«« 

JOB eriJ -io w9iv at tne easo art* ^o «»=» ^^ 

.nonirriBxe erf* ^0 noUo. 

,iio«a .H .0 (SortsiS) 

(Recorded Vol. 05, Page 4G2) 

Ex parte M. Marsh & Son. 

Trade-MarX for Cigars. 


Application for registration filed August SO, 1898, No. 56,433. 

Mr. John A. Saul for Appellants, 

This Is an appeal from the action of the examiner In refusing 
to register, as a trade-mark for cigars, the fac-slmlle signature 
of the firm, "M. Marsh & Son", and the words "Old Reliable 
Wheeling Stogies" printed across the face of the same. 

Under the admitted facts of the case and In view of the act 
of August 5, 1882, the mark Is registrable. I deem It unnecessary 
at this time to pass upon any of the other questions raised by tho 
action of the examiner. 

The decision of the examiner Is reversed. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


November 25, 18^. 

l^ov. 23, 1898. 

Vol. 65, Page 470. 


United States Patent Office. 


Ex parte Charles ¥. Spayd, 

Trade-Mark for Medical Compounds 



Application for registration filed September 8, 1898, ITo . 56,481. 

I.Iessrs. D:'.vis £■: Davis for applicant. 

Applicant 8.ppeals from the decision of the examiner refusing 
registry for the com.pound ■'^ord "Hydro-Bromo Soda Mint", as a trade-mark 
for remedies for certain named diseases. Applicant proposes to can- 
cel the word "Hydro" as an essential fea.tiire of the m.ark, and the case 
■will therefore be considered as if that v;ord were canceled. 

The decisions of the United States courts rather than those 
of zhe courts of individual States are controlling upon the action of 
1^ this office in passing upon questions relating to the registry of al- 
leged tr£cde-marks . In the absence of decisions of the former courts, 
peat respect should be accorded the decisions of the courts of last 
resort in the various States. The doctrine laid dovm by the United 
States Supreme Court in Rro\7n Co. v. Meyer, 159 U.S., 540,. seems in 
point and controlling in the present case. The Supreme Court held 
fethe term "Iron Bitters" to be indicative of the ingredients ano, char- 

acteristics of the preparation to which the allered trade-mark was 
applied. Yet that term does not clearly indicate what special in- 
gredients are employed in the a.rticle. Bitters , as generally under- 
stood, being a liquor in which bitter herbs or roots are steeped, one 
v/ould gather fi'ora reading the words "Iron Bitters" that the article 
was such a liquor, containing in addition thereto some one of the 
many preparations of iron. 

In the present case one v/ould gather from reading the words 
"Broi-io Soda T.Iint" that soda mint , an article well knov/n to pharmacists, 
was combined with bromine or a bromide . I can distinguish no differ- 
ence betv/een the two terms as possessing the characteristics essenticil 
to a lawful trade-mark. If one is not a lawful trade-mark, the other 
is not. 

Being taught by the decision of the United States Supreme 
Court that the term "Iron Bitters" is not a lav/ful trade-m.ark, it must 
be held that "Bromo Soda Hint" is not, and therefore the decision of 
the examaner of trade-marks is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 

Cojiunissioner . 

ITovem.ber 26, 1898. 

.<:>_ - 

8BW jHBm-ebBi^ b9:-\9llB ocii rioiriw oi noii-jaiBqetq edi lo 3ox;t3Xia^o 
-ni iBlooqs JBriw 9d-iioibnx yI^^jsIo jon 89ob miaJ JariJ J9Y .bsilqci 
-'r9bn«j YllBT:9n9n 3B -, 319 J J 13 .9loi;ttB sriJ nx b9YoIqrfi9 oib sindiha'i 
ono ,b9q99:t8 y-ij. BcToo'i 10 ao'ir;:: iOcTjid rioidw nx lowpil b j^nxod ^bonii 
gloxiiB 9fiJ JBri;J ".8i9j^xa noil" sbiov/ 9ri:f gnibBei moil 'i9r{JBs bLuo^- 
9r[J lo ano aiuoa oieiQdi nvi.'.bbB ni. 7:*axnxj.-.Jnoo ^loupxl b rioua 3bv/ 

.noix lo anoxc^BiBqeiq YHBri 

eb'iov/ erio anxoByT: l.o'l'1 ic-iuba, bluo^v sno 93Bo ineaeiq .il 

.scraxoBfliiBrfq o;t- rrv/octTi Il9w sIolctiB nB ,: ^rti:n Bbos JBriJ "cTnxI.I Bboa ono-rP" 

-i9lixb on riaxwgaXdBxij xibo I . a jjx 11 1.010 .0 10 gnxmoid rfcfxw bgnxo'moo s:.. 

IBX cra933 aoxd-axiocfoBiBrio 9rio anxaasasoq 3b asatoi ovii edi neeMisd eor _ 

•x9f[Jo eclo jjiiBHi-gbBij Iju'IwbI b oon ax 9no II .:i-ij^iu-ui^^. 10 xul'-vBi ^^ ^w 

• J'oa ex 

9m9iqu3 agJB^ja bactxnU enj '10 rioiaxosb 9r(J- ^d JrfauBu jiiiaS 
cfajJiTi ^x ,?IiBm-9bBij I.alwBl b cTon ax "3i9ct;txa noil" tuieJ anJ JBriJ ^luoO 
lo noxaxogb 9rlJ 9iol9i9rf;f bnB ,jon 3X "jnxM BboB ofi-ioia" JbcIj bl»- 

.befntxllB 3x 3?{'iBm-&bBiJ lo i9nJ:mBX9 9rj 
,IISfxG .li .0 (botrua) 
. I9noi33xr;ffiio0 

.8681 ,SS igdcigvoU 


Rt-j.'jordol VoliHTK^ CG, Page 20. 

On appeal frora the action of the examiner in rer-aslng 
to reelBto.r the ■^'.'ord "MIDGET* as a trade-mark for aro larapg. 


"The .iocl5?lori of the examiner Is reversed, for the reason 
that thero is nothing in the record to show that the word "iJICGIilT^, 
TThen 7.ppllo:l to appli'-innt's lamps, In-llcates gise. On the con- 
trary, it is asserted that the word, recognizing aoplioant's 
tr?.:1e-nsrk, calls for Its Ifloipf^, so doalfinate^, rectardless of their 

"j?h'"? ""Or"', n^.*^ doi'.'btl'^'i" ':>''■ thoit'-"ht sii<-"<^est ive. The ■'vord 
"Lightning" applied to hay-knives is suggestive, but it was held 
valid (41 J'ed. Rep,, 54)." 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


Deceraher 6, 1890. 


.YVIA«DiOO !:)I5[T0S[JS A 

.iioiaioaa a'Hsnioicaiiaioo 

^•TL:oail.I" c-iow on* i&iit worfe o* Jbiooei Qti& nl •^iti&oa at oiorii isrii 


fLLauQ. .H .0 (Jbertaia) 

.pcpr ,r^ tscrmaooa 


.at; ,2iiAiajiw HqaaoT, 3THA3J® • .j 

.OS esB^ ,00 .loV fiafc'xooaH 

» ./:>ei»«iyi« ai lenlBiBxe erii Ic rrctrioafc erfT" 


.OP'. .' vM-trpa 

> F- 

itA Vl^ , 

Recorded Vol. C6, Page 20, 

On appeal from the action of the exaralrf'" v rofuslng to 
reglotor the words "Sans Pareil" as a trade-mark for certain named 
Tnediolnes, on regls'tere'l trrxde-raarJi to J. T. Smith, #17,556, 
Peoruary 18, 1890, the word-symbol "Hon-Pareil" used on an anodyne, 
and booauso of the descriptive ohnracter of tho v/ords claimed. 

•The decision of the examiner is affirmed." 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 
Coraralgs loner. 

December 7, l.!»0. 



.anai-itroHa jiav hthasi xh 

.OS PSBl ,30 .loV ^ofcrsoooH 

■^r<J sn^ai/ioi rrJt -ronlniBXd erf* to noitOB ©rW moi'i Isoqc/f? rrO 
:^oo'3: lol XiRm-ehfii* b as •TH01M00 QlilOa" aSnor :^r^7 •o^^ 

VtPaiurr fcnj; *oXlo* •jo'i "J-toIbidO'' fciow erf^ ,1081 ^1^ Jaivy-A ,VVG,GI^'^ 
etiovr <*ff^ ,8681 ,S rfoiBlC ,OOG,VS;\ ,i?»*aoaieO .J ,D briR ;toibwoq 

oJ- fcoi'Iqojs 3B "TKOTMOO (IIJOS* ebiOTT orfJ" lo teJof^iBrlo 3£Ix8I■;^•xovi)B 

" .beanlTtB ai •xsnlntsxo orlt 1o notafoob orfT" 

,8SGX .' :■■■: .>d 


Recorded Vol. C6, Page 20. 

On appeal from the action of the examiner in refusing the 
to reglBtor tho words "SOLID COMPORT" as a trade-marX for foot 
po-wdor, on roclsterod trade-raarks of the Comfort Powder Co., 
#19,977, Aur'xal 4, 1831, the word "Comfort* for toilet and nursory 
powder; and C. L. Carpenter, #27,900, March S, 1896, the i^ords 
"Foot Komfort" for foot po^rdor; and "because of the desorlptlvo and 
advertising character of the words "SOLID COMFORT" a^^ applied to 
those suffering from ailments of the feet. 

"The decision of the examiner is affirmed. • 

(SU<^ed) C. H. "Xiell, 


Dece"il-:>r 7, 1C38. 

^;^v. 7'^. ^^ "^^^^ 

.JUOaiHH .T aj-IH^OSHT ai5iAq xg 

.LC. p^f^q ,3D .IcV SofTornft 

A RR "HSOK-^'f'.*'^" rr>,-ff^'c_.F.«rcT7 Jhri^,prrn'"rq^'f'' ^•>f•^r>-'rT^' 

bI ^I " ."SaOF-OKA*?* IocrCT^p~£>'row f>9*]Ba©rfq[v( trtxrornroo ori# f©d-e.i 
fconilofi Jbiow s si: "ansl" ^Brf;f iioinefi ^on bns 'senimBx& Qd^ xd bBisia 
orf.t eic7.e'y.'^rfj *Brft I^.i^^ , .odo '\ J-nBisF^i'i" ss \":r.'^ reel jnj.^ oaonix-'O / ■ '" 
Bvlfqi'ioaBii el bQiBtat^ei ©cf ot drfsij-OB l)now fce^tsneriq^ri Jbrmcq-aoo 

©rfi "io anclpJtooL lolncr odi to wbIv nl fcus ^&Qt tcl jTiRr; 

©cT vlJrtjid'alancri iopj-r.<?o "aaOfr-DMA'i" "io rrolJ'B'x^alao'i 9rl;t soiTio 

r.aai^o JbriB ,5131 ,.D.O S3 , .of) :r ♦io.r{ioT7j-<xF>H o4'j>-^ :■:.:' ..b?"o: : . 


.aesi .8 *^f»crfir»!5oa 


Rofjor^nd Vol. CG, Pago 21. 

On Totltlon frore thf? aotlon of the examiner In rofixsing to 
rG^i^tor fh(^, r^ovrponmi nyp'hRn'^tnd v^ord-vyrnbol "PATIG-ROSH" as a 
tr?.de-Tn;?.rX for tea, or- the trado-marlc of tc. B. Mlllor & Co., 
#4,348, 'F'<^brii?5"^7 6, 1077, the "rord-sym'bol "Ro^ie* for Japan tf?a, 
and 'becaufje of th<^ ^f^^r^rlptlvc character of the ^ord "PATIG* when 
ycfj/^ I-'-' r>o-nn(sr»tlo:n rlth thf^ wo'^d "ROCE". 

"This petition is based upon the refusal of the oxfa^lner to 
register the ooinpound hyphenated word-gyrnbol "FAHG-ROSS". " It Is 
stated by the examiner and not denied that "Eang" is a word defined 
in ■-% Chinese dioclon^'.ry as "fragrant," S:o. , and that therefore the 
oompoiind Jyrphenated word sought to be registered is desoriptlve 
rhen applied to tea. 

The fact thai, the word-syrabol Is hyph'^7iatr>,f. -?.3n3 not malco it 
reci.'',tf=>>iie. l^x parte Pitt3'ouri»h Piunp Co., 04 O.G. , 309. 
Furthermore, the word "Rose" has heretofor«^ been reeiaterod as a 
trale-marlc for tea, and in view of the prior decisions of the 
office the registration of "PANG-ROSE* cannot consistently be 
ai:o'"od. :::-c p':-rtp HnrlTrotlier f~ Co., 85 O.G. , 151S, and oases 
therein oited. 

The decision of the examiner is affirmed. " 

( Signed) C. II. Dnoll, 

Coraniss loner. 
December 8, 1898. 

vifi.*'.^^. SST3>!) 

.rrellA .a -^rM. STHAq xm 

.GS 93BI ,80 .loV .a.SM 

oi saiawTtei ni neninmxe 8r(;f ^o notiOB eiii^ moil iBoqqB nO 

AoJ^BioqBve riB lol AiBm-efcBii^ b bb "MAISHO TJAM" afctow arf^f leJ^aiaoi 

19x1*0 f>nB jWaa ,&Lsm ^XLtm wen rfoii anlnifiJ-noo ^noUfiiBqei? Jbool 

art* lo evlitqiioaef) gib a£>iow f>i6a ^fBrid^ fintrots erf* aoqu ^siitalbBt^t 

-eisrrl sri* BiBotbat Y^rf* *firf^ ^-t ffcailqqB oib ^rf* riolrfw 0* efcoog 

BBW ii ,nol*BiBqeiq fcool a'c^r^BciIqq6 "io aol^alie^OBiBrfo itfiB ad-nolfc 

iBKroIICi 8£ bled 

iCMf Tto J'iBq B salnrrol d-nsme^Bd-e erii^ ni rlttol ai^ee drtRoHqqA" 

fcsJ'BioqBvo nfl* o* f>8llqq6 st il iBrit ^iiBm-ebBti erf* icI rioi*Br>lIqqB 

-loxxliq sriT .oA'^ilfini ,XIifli wen rfoJti anlxilBinoo ,nol*Bisq9iq fcool 

-<I6 ,0V8I ,,0.0 ^S , .00 fcocl a'XolIioH eJ-iBg XQ nl nwob f^lsl eLq 

©rtoletod* al isalrrasxe 9jrf* "io xioJtaloefi eriJr bns ,9aso i-idi c* asllq 

jlleiia .H .0 (fcansJtS) 

,8601 ,51 f^dmoOQC 

EX PARTE Mary E. Allen. 

MS.D, Vol. ee^ Page 39. 

On appeal froia the action of the examiner In refusing to 
register the words "MALT CREAM" as a trade-raarX for an evaporated 
food preparation, containing rich new milk, malt, salt, and other 
ingredients, upon the ground that said words are descriptive of the 
goods to which they are applied, in that they indicate the ingre- 
dients and characteristics of applicant's food preparation, it was 
held as follows: 

"Applicant sets forth in the statement forming a part of her 
application for the trade-mark that it is applied to *an evaporated 
food preparation, containing rich new milK, malt,'&c. The princi- 
ple laid down in ex parte Horlick's Food Co., 84 O.G. , 1870, ap- 
plies to this case, and the decision of the examiner is therefore 
affirmed. * 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


December 15, 1898. 


/J J 


— — — _ ^ _^^ , .- 

Reoorded Vol. m. Page e«r/ and iW"*^nj^ ^ : 

On appeal frotn the action of the examffle^-fii'Viltlisliig to 
register the word "AHTISEPTIHE" as a trade-raark for ointment, 
it was held ag follows: 

•It seem« that a dry '^listing powder, termed "Antiscptin**, 
Ifl referred to in '•Reming'ton' s Praotioe of Pharraaoy,« third edi- 
tion, page 1371, and this application for registration of the 
word "AHTISEPTIIO;" stands rejected on referenoe to that putolioa- 
tion. The words are substantially the same, and therefore the 
latter oould not he lawfully registered as a trade-:iiark for the 
same article of merchandise. Applicant uses his marK in connection 
with an ointment, 

"While I would have some doubt whether it is good praotioe to 
register as a trade-marX for ointment substantially tl-'e same word 
as is applied to a powder, there is nothing in the record to show 
that Antiseptln as an article of merchandise is upon the marXet, 
and that is one reason why I am inollned to resolve the doubt in 
favor of the applicant. 

Furthermore, I ara of the opinion that while a careless pur- 
chaser would take Antiseptln for Antiseptln©, if he did not Xnow 
that one was a powder and the other an ointment, I do not think a 


.00 9-^1 ,80 .XoV befiiooeH * 

0* atti««l©^ iti leaiaiBX© 9rf^ ^o aolcfos orf^ wot* l«»qqa ixO 

rawoXIo't »» Msri a«w ^ 
^•♦ni^^aoaii'nA" Jb9f«e»* ,tofcwoq 3fri^eJ/^ ri£» b ^Tsffc^ nrnwea ^I" i 

-m^Ldttq &atlt ot mmmBlon no t&^oB'iet sbaBta "aniTSHBITHA." £>i^ 

oxfJ- ©^oleT.©rf;t JbfjB ^wree ori* yIXBl;rrts*8di/3 (ns a£>vow eriT .no J 

«I* Tto^ :;lT£.jiT-0fe«*^ • M fcoieJ-Blsoi xXXj/iwBX atf *on fcXxjoo le^^i 

nci*oemtoo ni *mm «irf asBw tosolXqqA .sBibOBrioionr "io 9Xol^x• eae 

.^rrom^rrlo rts rf^J 

o* •ol;^o*'xcr &0OS ai ^i -xeif^effw ^cJj/ofi einoB ovb.i JiXxjow I oXlriW" 

Ltov ©attsa e/r^ YXXBitne^scTi.ti ^noia^nio 'lo'i >i''ii>X!i-9i>f'tJ b sb lO^eXgi 

vOftti P* feiooPi orfJ^ nl ^nlrfJon ai sieri^ j-xofcwDq b o* totLqzB at \ 

^JeXTsn orf;f rrocr/j el aeibrrBffoieBi to eXoi^^iB ob bb atiq.&Btiak iBi 

nt tduob 9tl^ svXoee'x oi bQiiXloat ms I Yri"" rtowoi enc al *6ff^ &i 

-ixn apaXoiBO b oXlifw :fBf<t fiolrtlqo ert* Tco me I ,eiOBrxerf*au^ 
FO/tX cfon bXA ©/f IX ,«iI**q»«X^nA tol nXcfqeaX^trtA eiiBi fcXirow it-o^ 
B MJilrt* *on Ob I ,dnem^nlO hb T:ei*ro oriit boB nafrwcq b ««▼ ©no ^/ 


purohas<=?r exerolsiTig only slight oare would "be deceived, provided 
he Xnew one was the name applied to a powder and the other to an 
cintnent, notwithstanding the faot that "both the powder and the 
ointmcmt are or may be used for substantially the same purpose. 
The difference between the ointment and the powder, althouch both 
are intended to be used for the same purpose, worrld be considered 
by the court passing upon the question of infringement. 
Sterling Remedy Co. v. Eureka, &o. , Co., 80 Fed. Rep., 105, 
Upon the authority of that case and the earlier oase of Soclete, 
&c. , V. Baxter, 14 O.G, , 679, where Judge Blatchford held that a 
trade-mark applied to a dry, white oxide of zino did not prevent 
the use of the same mark for that article ground in oil, I reverse 
the action of the examiner. ■ 

(Signed) C, H. Duell, 


December 10, 1898. 


bBblvotq fbevlBOBb &Q' bZuow *ibo Jn'ai-Ca vino srriRioifixe iBBsrioitir; 

n« ot toriio srfJ fcrrs tstvoq b o& bBXiqq& iKOsa etli aaw errc -vAfTTr ^f 

eriJ £>xiB noftwoq ariJ^ ri^^od i&At toal eriJ- 3^il>xlB^Bff4•lvc^o^ ^^nenJ-nic 

i>0'xe£)lsnoc act' Jblrrow ^Bsoqiuq oxtibb of[^+ fot itaexr 90 o.t JS>©6£t€>*.r ■^ '^ti 

,84©J:ooa i© »efiO toiXtsa oxf# fin* 3a«o i&sii Io xiltotiixsA ecii noqU 
« ;faii* l)idd tiolrfoJ'jaXS osfci/t a-xorfw ,CVO ,.D.o ^i^x frte^xaS .v , .0* 
^iNlfev; io« bib oais ^o efilxo e^firiw ^y-cb b o* fcelXqqs jCisra-ftfjei* i 
een9V9i I ^Xlo at Amrona aXol^ia ^Brfd" tol: Xruwrt ©msa sj^J "io ©air ©ri# ' 

" .lenlMSxo eH^ %c :%ottOA o4f j 

.8G8X ,0X ledBiQoh 

j]f'orse-d January 10, 1B99 

U. S. Patent Office 

Ex parte Brass Goods Jiff.. Co 


Trade-mark for Safety Pins 

Appeal . 

lication for reristration filed February 26, 1898, ITo . 55,217 

On apy.eal from the ciction of the exar:;iner in refusing'; to 
rerister "a rectangle traversed hy reversed curves, as shovm and des- 
cribed, and the parallel lines intersected thereby, and tlie phrase 
'Sensible Safety Pin Book' " as a trade-rr.ark for safety pins upon the 
grciiind t?iat the rujiresentation claimed is merely the wrapper or pack- 
age in v'hich the goods are placed and upon the further ground that 

the v/ords claimed descriptive of the book or wrapper and the 
character of the same, the com.m.issioner held as follows: - 
"The decision of the exa^ainer is affir^nedV 

C. H. Duell, 

Comi".issioner , 

JanAiary 10, 1899. 

Endorsed Jo.r)uary 10, 1899 



U. S. Paterit Office 

p]x ■pa.rte Christe.nsen T; Henderson 

Trade-llark for V'heat .?lour 

Appela . 

Aprlication for repisi:ration filed Hay 27, lo9o, :To . 55,357 

On appeal from the action of the exa„;.iner of trade-marks 
in refusing; to register the word "MTNCERES" as a trade-mark for v/heat 
flour on the rer-istered trade-mark of l^^illiam M. Gait, ilo . 10,313, 
Me.y 29, 1383, tne v.^ord "Ceres", the Commissioner held as follows: 
"The decision of the exoj.-iiner of trade-m.arks is reversed." 

C. H. Duell, 


January 10, 1899 

/ ' 


Ex parte E. Levering & Co. 
MS.D. , Vol. GG^ Page 154. 

On appeal froia the exaininer's refusal to register the ^ords 
"Royal Pride" as a trade-mark for ooffee, tipon certain registered 
trade-marlcs for the ?/ords "Royal I>utGh" , "Royal Gem" , and "Red, 
l,Yhite and Blue Royal," the Conmlssioner held as follows: 

"The decision of the examiner is affirmed upon the authority 
of the cases cited by him. 

(Signed) C. K. Duell, 


January 12, 1009. 


,7iOI'?lO TUrtfTAI 351TAT2 G^t'T'TX-tt 

.cO -•?) snI'xovoJ .:•[ sJ'XPq; xB" 

.1^31 ©3B^ ,ao .loV ,.Q.aM 


,£)a5i" LnB ,"nmO IsyoH" , "rio^iKl IsvoH" af)iow odi to"! aXi.3nf-9fcB'i-^ - 

vj-liort^i/B ori;^ noqjLT feoxirtillB ai toni.r.isxB oricf 'io no2aloe£> eriT" 3 

♦isnoiaaJinpioO i 





Ex r,arte Jlenry Tate « Sons. 

I.IS.D. , Vol. Q>Q>^ Page 155. 

%J^,.^M.^(s l^f "-— ^- 

On appeal froii tlv^ action of the exaialner in refusing to 
register a diamond- shaped outline as a trale-narK. for granulated 
sug?.r, crystal sugar and cube sugar, upon the grotmd that the said 
diamond- shaped outline ^vas not the essential feature of applicant's 
mark, the Commissioner held as follov/s: 

"In this case applicant (a corporation) states 'The trade-raarK. 
of said conpany consists of a diaitiond- shaped outline;' also that 
'the essential feature' of the marlc 'is a diamond- shaped outline.' 

"The fac-siinlle presented shovrs the vrord 'Tate' enclosed I'rith- 
in the diamond- shaped outline, and the description of the raarX 

'This' (the diamond-shaped outline) 'has generally been ar- 
ranged as shown in the accompanying fao- simile , v/nich represents 
the trade-mark as used T.'lth the r^ord 'Tate' enclosed in the dia- 
mond, but the position of the vovo, may be changed and the trade- 
mark may be used alone at « v/ithout materially affecting the char- 
acter of the trade-iaark, the essential feature of which Is a 
diainond- shaped outline. ' 

"As now presented, the mark sought to be registered - a 
diamond- shaped outline - is, in my opinion, registrable, and re- 
mains so, notwithstanding unregistrable matter is also shown in the 
fg.c-simile and referred to in the description, so long, at least, 
as such iiatter is a mere accessory, not claiiaed, not stated to be 
always used with the mark, and which may be oviitted. The unlawful 
use of the diamond- shaped outline would be an infringement of the 
trade-mark, if registered as now presented. 

"Viewing the case as I do, it follows that the decision of the 
examiner must be reversed. " 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 

January 11, 1039. 


LJiV'i^ uiuiTAq SMTATC ©i^IlIU 

.anon w sJ'bT Y'^nell aJ-iB-i xa 

.351 o-qbH ,00 .loV ,.a,?M 

oi arclax/loi rri Tiorilnisxe Bri* lo rtoic^oB orfd- noil Isoctcjb riO 

i<ocfBlj/ni="S3 toi Xisn-ei^si;!- s as ojriilJ-j/o fiBcr/^ria-fcrroiiJsil:. b -Loie.!:/..-: 

blsa Off J' J-BrtJ- ^jrarots oiii aojjj ,is3x;b stf/zo Isne 'xbsx/s IbJuy'!:© ,Tf-:v^ 

G 'd'm-oilrrqjR lo oii/Jsol iBictTtsaao offd" ^orr eB\'^ ^rtiLtsso i>o^i>rf8-i)nori.;..t5 

raTfOlIo"! as fclBri laaolealmrrfoO orfJ" ,:>['-H"i 

^'rsn-e^Bi^ 9rfT' ac>isi8 (nol^stoJioo b) insolIq:TB saso e.lrii nl" 

Jsrt.J oals ';enllij:i'0 l:.9qsri8-brroriK:J:b b "lo aJainnco Yns^iinoo bl.?-p lo 
^ ,&iy.iLiuo £>eqBrta-£rtOiTtsJtc s aX ' Xisin ori^ lo 'oix/iss'i L&iineGso o^.i* 
-litlr beaoLcciQ 'fid-sT' £)iov7 ori;t sworta harfnsa&nq- oIJTrtia-OBa 9riT" 

X-rsm arU lo noiJ^vTltoasfe eii:^ bciR ^QntLSuo bBq£^tie-bai.ontBtb oriJ- :i 

iQOif ' ■:■ 
-IB fceao vIlBiefte^ asri' {entLiito beqsda-bixotriBtb srfJ ) 'airiT' 
Biizeeetcrei iiotrir-; , 9l.i:fTrla-osl arfivnsqnroooB grid- rri /r"0rfa as i^asr. •: 
~Btb Qcii rtl £>9aoIone 'oisT' ijiow sriJ- a'^Itt fieax/ 86 }[i£ni-iibBti e'i 
-BbBii Qdi bas roarrsxlo bcT vsiii r-roTv ori^ lo noiJ-/soM erfd' ^x;cf ,fcroj 
-tBr:o odi anicf 09ll6 vLLBiteism iuoriit',"} » » onols £>9air ocf vsm Xt -r 
^ 8i nclrfw lo QtuiRel lsli:tesaQ edi fXism-oi'Siv' orfu Ic leJot 

' .on 11 .t I/O l^oc:B^'a-/>^ofrL- '■- 

s - -.:;:. i;:^v/ c:^^o'i av o^ jiL^joa v.. i;-i i ^-r fLDoneeeicf von aA" 

-91 Jb:x6 ^©IcJBi^alaoi ,noinJ:."iO vrt ai ,8 J: - oniljrro tecrsna-iinoirKifi 

orf^ al nworis oalB al loJJsm Qlo'sictsisoinir sni^insJ-affJiw^on ,oa ani.3«r 

finBQl ir, ,3noI oa ^noicf-T-tioaai. oriJ- nl od" ^€iiieloi fcnB 9xlnJo-c.?.l 

8d' Ovt i^ocfsd'a v^on ji>9:.iiBlo ion fVioaaeocs 9i9fif b at lOttd-Brt rfcira cs 

Ij:.''iw6lnn sriT .boiiimo ea ■^;snr rioixfw brtB ,J[iBnr oriJ- riil'.r Loax.r avr-ls 

eriw lo J-aoxiraaxililni xiB so' filxxow onxXJ;/o £>9CfBr[s-£inor;iBl£) 9rfJ lo au 

.fco^noaeiq won as fceioctal^oi 11 ,XiBf!i-e£----:d" 
or'^ lo noir'"'' . .; j.- .; —":*■■"'■ ■* ■■ .'^' I as 9aBc 9rii snlwolV" 

'' .I>oei9V9i 9cf ianm lonlmio 

, 1 1 9jja .K . D ( f>9n3l o ) 

.GG8I fLL x'^Bry:0l-' 



/ Ex parte J. William Lewis ft Co. 

MG.D. , Vol. CG, Page 21&. 

On appeal l^vom Vii-. refn^al of the ''-iXfTiilner to re^lQte?.- tlie 

'•'liras '"iOL'i^jlO rRT^'T^':: , " u • '.rade-inarlc for oert^^an namod r!ry- 
joods, the Comiif38tonf>i: held 'b folloT^R! 

'•That 'Tolndo' iH £^o£:raphlo^.l, ari-i thr.reforf-; no-o -- l'':.vful 
traie-marX, oannot and has not "ooen suooessrully oontrovertf^d. 
GeorA''''iphi':!Hl r:^:".»>g ver'"' .r!Ot l^trrTul tvadf^-:'iw.rX?5 prlo"*" to lo31, 
(Canal Co. v. Clark, i:: Wall., 311,) and thernforc a goographioal 
Y/orcI used prior to Larch Z, 1881, F,t?.ndg In no dlf..'. oi.t i-osltlon 
before the offioe, by reason of the Aot of 1882, than suoh worda 
adopted for use subsequently to that date. 

Ihe word •Preraiura' is not rogistrabie. It has heretofore 
been refused registration, ( ex parte New England Whalebone J-ifg, 
Co., 51 i.l::..:jv^. , VI), and v/ords of aiiailar iraport havo been ro- 
fiised r'^5i'^tr>Htion or held unlawfiil trade-m^Jrlcs by the oo-irtB, 

T'Jc- ..rately, neither word is snbjeot to appropriation 

as a I'iwful trade-TiarX. The contention that granting that p'v'opo- 
oition, they noYortholc:^ oo'iOVK-: a lawful tra Ii-'-m-u.-'k wh^n jol.T' ly 
used, seeiiB to be nolther founded on rea??on nor supported by 

X'70 nog;itive'7 nay maXe an aff irinative, but t^o ^yorde, both 
unrcglstrabio "-hen sin^lo, oaimot -ihsn ooiioijiei -jon-i ^itute: 3. 
mgislrablo tradc-Tiark, (Bro'vne on Trnde-I.I^irXs , flnnts. ^540,547). 

Ihe dooision of th'^ ox-Tiainer ig aff irino '.. 

J^nuar;' 37, 1899. 

,00 ji RlweJ Me-tiLlM .T, o^isjxH 

.ii:; o^H^ .. . < , .a.c!!^ 

^;^pJ:^pi ffrPi/l'^f erft^ 


,f^^.;^•^^'.vrT.t(Tn^l yIIi/l88i^0CiirP rT-';'''" ctrrr af-i-f Mt/-; .tOfrrrBr .y'Ti^rr-r.J'.'^'r^- 
lBplriij5=i'!:30oa -^ a";cO:8Vi:ef(# biXB (.Xi'S , .IIbV/ .,^ ,.i-; , .oO XjbxijsO) 

.olBfc SBiii oi YXdrrei/peecfxra ©aw tot bf*iqof^ 
er.fO'ioJeiori eerl J-I .oIcfB'X.^aiaoi joii al 'iTU/ictei*!' jj'iow orri 

.HcftxTOC f»ff* vcf {»?r'rRrT-oi5S'y,t LsjJ^fe.Sm.r JMf^rf to rrrt. •'.-'■,+ ■ r>r-'!: ^ep O: 

. 7J rr--. . . . _^.. . . . ,;■:- t.t! 

Torf rf.r rxifoJ. ■sc^rf^lon ecf 

• YJi'iondT 


I^nciorsecl January 51, 1099. ^^Gcorded 'ol. GO, pap-e 243. 

'K S. Patent Office 

r,x parte Prenderpiast C-- Pionovan 

Trade-ITarlc for Liniments. 
Appeal . 
Application for ref isi.ration filed January 15, 1G9G. Ser. "To. 54,924. 

On appeal frofn the action of the examiner in refusing; to 
re/ister a.s a ti'ade-iaark for liniments for tlie treat/nent of rheumatism 
or pain in the inuscles or joints, the v/ord "CROY-^T" ant- • : - representa- 
tion of a croT/n raul the vrords "Rheumatic Reiaedy" upon certain references 
and pon the descriptive character of tlie v/'ords "rheumatic Remedy", 
the Commissioner held as follows: - 

"The decision of the examiner is affivmed, with leave to applicants 
to re-present, if they elect, t}ie question in issue to t'-e examin- 
er for further action upon additional papers," 

(Si.-ned) C. H. .Ouell, 

Commissioner . 

January ol , 1899. 

or 191X1 nOXoj3.lJ« 



.nr;9r:H" abio"- erir :r,voio .3 lo no';. 

'ie^Joiiisrio 9vJ;Jqiio89t) eriJ «oq; ''i 

- -eAvo'Lo'!- K , .i torroxaslriivtoO a'j 

't9cixm£X9 sriv^ lo noisiooh 9n"' 1 

,J09l9 \^9ri^ "ii ,ill989-^q-9T OJ j 

hj- nnqu aniJoB *fon'JlWl tol t9 ^ 






Ex parte Strauss, SaoTis & Co. 

IS.D. , Vol. 66, P. 271. 

On appeal from the action of the examiner In refusing to 

register the ^ord "DEFIANCE" as a trade-raark for skirt binding, 

because of its s^^ocraphlcal signification, the Coiaaiasioner held 

as follows: 

"The decision of the examiner of trade-marks in refusing to 
register the word "Defiance" as a trade-raark for skirt hlndings 
I Is affirmed on the authority of ex parte Little & Co, ,85 O.G. , 
1221, and the decisions therein referred to. 

The affidavit filed by applicants has been considered, but 
discloses no ground which warrants a reversal of the examiner. 
The facts disclosed by the record fail to take the case out of the 
general rule rel?iting to the registry of geographical Trords. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


February S, 1899. 





.00 A arfOBQ ^bbubiSB bjibct xg 

.iTs.q ,D5 .lov , .a. an 


ot ^iBsflQi [it tenlmsxa ac^J xo noiioB et(i ciotI I«©crciB rtO 

frlerf loiiot&attsmioo axl;^ ^noicfiSol^inaiB IftoirffiBisoss ai'* "io eBW/soeo 

rewollo't eft 

, ,0,0 38 , .00 A Qliiid eiiBcc x9 lo -^^i -torf ii/B etii no fcenreillB aJt 

.0* battelst nt3t9tii aaotetonb enii ImB ,XSai 
tiKf. ,6ftiF»tJ'Eftor rreecT afiff B^asotLqqB vcf fceli'i itivBtlllB 9riT 
.nert-^'" ' f)ri^ lo iBsiavoi s eictRitBir rfoirfw fcxa:70is on aoBoXoalfc ) 
9rf* "3:0 V £.0 9ffj oX«J- oJ- II Bl ^tooei e»/fd' v<j beaolrpif- aJ-oR"?^ enT 

.aJbiow liiolriJTeiaoea lo Y^d^alaerr ©rf* o* anU'^Xwrr elin li^-rBnea 

,Il3inl .:i .0 (Lorrsia) 

.9€8I ,8 xtsindQl 




Ex parte De Movllle & Co. 

Recorded Vol. C3, Page 220. 

On re-hearing of the Comaiasioner's deoision in ex parte 

Be Moville & Co., 50 MS.l), » 14,^ registration of the words 

•CRUSHED ROSES" as a trade-raarX for perfumery, the Goimaissioner 

held as follows: 

•This petition is denied. Ex parte Schandein & Lind, Q6 
MS.D. , 185. • 

(Signed) C. H. D\iell, 


February 20, 1899, 

.aomo TlCfTA^ SSETAT3 OETimJ 

,oD :S dllivoM" i?»a oitBc j{Jl 

.GSS. e3£*2 ,30 .loV £>f«£»'r003;i 

{iLiow ©ff;r lo iioiiBtiai^3'-x ,*>! ,.a.8SJ 03 , .oO & oIIlvoM ea 

:«iroIIo*i es l^Iori 

■ .am , .a.aM 



Levor Bros. , Ltd. , v. Paef ield. 

88 Fed. Rox. , 404. 

"Sunlight is \indonbtedly a good trade-mark, and the uf50 of 
the naiae 'American Gi.inlight' in connection with noap is plainly 
an infringcinent. " . ' 



Ex parte Pena Bros. 

MS.D. Vol. 66, Page 556. 


On appeal from the aotlon of the examiner in refusing to 

register the words "ESCUDO de CUBA" and the representation of a 
shield having oortain bearings thereon, alleged to he the coat of 
arras of Cuba, as a trade-mark for saws, the Commissioner held as 
follows : 

»As presented the mark is not considered to he registrable, 
and the decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

Should applicants elect to file an amended drawing, omitting 
the words "Esoudo de Cuba" and their firm name and address, to- 
gether with an amended statement, clearly describing the mark and 
its essential features, they nay be entered, and the application 
further considered by the examiner. " 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 

Coiin log loner. 

March 4, 1899. 

.aOI'TiO TltaTAI aSTATa OHTIiai 


.aoia Bael ej-igg xK ) 

.OSS ^igeq ,8o.iov .a. aw 

A Tto nolo«*n©aoiq9n &tit boB "ASUO ofc OcnJOSS" ©Mow srf^ Te^Blgei ; 

■^' *^'^'^ "^^'^ "cf 04^ h©3©XX6 ,rtc9iori^ •anlisftcf ntBttf^o snivsxf Meiifa \ 

ae fcX»i? •serroiaalfflinoO ©ri* ,aw6G 10^ ^tf^m-Bbett b bb ,Bcrirt) lo anriB ; 

rawollo^ i 


,f»Xcfr^^iaisoi 3d oi boi9&ie£iOD ion al Xibci eriJ- beirrfteo^g aA" ^ 

.fcsflfTil^'^B ai if^filOTBxft erfJ- 10 nolaloal) eri;^ l>xia ^ 

snl^^ioK) ,sfiiwBtft bebctdma ob aXll oJ *oeXe a^nBoil--^" "-li/orfa 

-Ov+ ^aaetfefjfi JbriB antarr ctxII ilprii fcns "BcfirO e& o£> atiow orf* ^ 

fixtB iTxBffl erf* snldlToaefc vXiBeXo ,tn©OTPiB^e fcatitonns fDB rfiiw ^ari*6s ; 

fTOlJ-f.olXcril.p m/f;!- fits ^fcBia;t-rte ^>cf Y»f^ Yf^^i ,eonj:;i-6o'}: Ir-li^rtsaae ail \ 

" .lenlfliBX© arii vcf £)9rr9*Jranoo i^rfi^ij/i j 







Ex parte Hewlett & Lee. 

MS.D. Vol.66, Page S57. 


'■^ '*?^»^•i•A^.^4i 

On appeal from the action of the examiner in refusing to 
register the representation of a Chinese Bat in peouliar type and 
style of Chinese art, the Bat represented as holding in its mouth 
a stem on whloh peaohes and peach leaves are suspended, as shown, 
as a trade-mark for cotton cloth, upon registered trade-raarX of 
Fearon, Low & Co., #12,380, dated July 7, 1885, the essential fea- 
tures of whloh being the Chinese picture of a bat, and the class 
of goods the same, the Commissioner held as follows: 

"The decisions of this office in ex parte Meriwether & Co, , 
85 O.G. , 1513, ex parte KauJEtfann & Blache, 84 O.G. » 145, and 
ex parte Flint & Walling Mfg. Co., 85 O.G. , 148, are controlling 
upon the point presented by this appeal. I can find nothing in 
the record or in applicants' brief to distinguish this case from 
the oases above referred to. 

The decision of the examiner is therefore affirmed." 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


Haroh 4, 1899. 


.oeJ A tisLweK eJiBcr xg 

.VS5 eaBS[ ,80.iov .a. an 

oJ' 3nlaj:/iei cxi tentamxB odS lo ftol;tOB et{i nioi'i IsoqciB rtO 

bra Bqx^ iBiXiTooq rrl J-bS eaftnlrfD b to notiBineaQtq&'s erf^ ied-Blaf»i 

Hum Bii nt snlfilori as botnsaotqoi &bQ. Qrit ^itB ©aenlriO to eX^^B 

,nwoi{a 8B ^fcebneqaxra sib aevBeX rloBeq fcoB aerioseq rfclrfw no trisi^a b 

to XtBm-9btiti fceTte^falaei rtoqir ^riJ^oXo no*^oo tol XiBnt-abBi^ b cb 

-ftol Xfli^rreaae ecfi ,38GX ,V "\cXirL b&iBb ,OCS,SX\ , ,oO A woJ ^noiBe"?! 

•irbXo Prti fcHB ji-scf B to f^tutotq BBSattiO erf* grtiecf rfoirfw to serti/ct 

tewoXXol aB bXaif lenolaalinpioO arfJ ,efflB« erf* afcooa to 

, ,00 .* iftrf J-»wl toM e^'iBq; xe ni soltlo airfcf lo Br^olaloe^ oriT" 

fcrtB ,3J^X ,.0,0 :^8 jOriOBXa A fini^aftjjga eJtBCT x9 ,SXSX ,.0.0 58 

SniXXoi^noo eiB ,8*>X ,.0.0 38 , .oo .3IM aftlXXBW j& J'n.tX'i 9J-ib<i xe 

rti snirfi^on finll nso I .X«oqqB alri* ycf fce^neaeiq ^nioq ©rfJ^ aoqrr 

aoit eaBO «lri;f rfaiusnl^aifc o* tetid •aJ-riBoJtXqqB rti 10 Mooei oif ' 

,0* f>91T8tei ovocTb a6»8SO 9ti 

*JbmnlttB 9ic'i©ierf;>^ al lealmBxf* odi lo nolp-to9£> ewIT 

,XXeua .H .0 (1)9X1313) 

.ecCX f^ rfO^M !j 


Ex parte Manilla Mfg. Co. 

MS. D. Vol. 66, Page 558. 



On appeal from the aotlon of the examiner in refusing to 
register a label entitled "MANILLA CURE," to Toe used on salve, 
the Consnlssioner held as follows: 

"The decision of the primary examiner is affirmed." 

(Signed) A. P. Greel«y, 

Assistant coraraissloner. 

March 6, 1899, 




,00 .3IM SlIlXISM OtiBCt Xg 

.835 e3B<I ,08.IoV.a.5M 

cJ- grrieu/ltQ's nJt 10x11108X6 f>i^i lo rtoiJ-oe ftri^t irtortl I«»qq6 aO 
,v^vXna no beeu ecf oJ- ■,SHUD AJJIMAil" beliltcte lacfBl b le^faiaorc 

rawoXIol: es fcleri lonoioaiinaoO arfj- 

,t*(*6'X^ -^ .A (fcengia) 
.•xonolaRiPBifOO das^glaaA 


AX -pavte Hewlett !k Lee. 

US.D. , Vol. 66, Page 579! 

on appeal from the action of the examlnor in refMslng to 
reeister "tT-.e reprosentatlon of a Chinese Dog in tne peculiar 
ar.d ty-oical style of Chinese art, as shown, « as a trade-mark for 
cotton 3loth, on ths registered laarlc of the Maasachusettr. cotton 
Mills, .''10,040, dated Jan. 4, 1337, the Coiaraiaaioner held as fol- 


«AT)^lioants describe their marlc as "the ^'''presentation of a 
ciiinese'dop: in the t^eoullar and typical style of Chinese art." 
?he dos differs mt'erially in appearance fro^ the dog -ho^ in the 
re?er^noe tout notwithstanding the differences, both are referred 
tfasdo-' ^•"' --^o brand under which the nerohandise of the two 
LvTi^Tto whic-. the narks are applied, would be ^o^^/^^^^^' ^^ 
^c'inlon be the -Dog» brand, i^arthex^ore ^^^/^^^^.^^J^^^^t^^ 
applicants use their marXs upon the soods and ^^J^^^f ^^^n 
trkde is with the same country. RegiBtrant states that the mark is 
st^^^ed upin the goods with blue ink which is ^^;j% «^f ^^^f ^^t 
employed by applicants, as shown by the -.anple of the marX fu.n 

^'''"'\s ^resented the mark does not appear to bo reciBtr.ole, and 
therefore the decision of the examiner is affirmed. 

(Signed) C. H. Duell, 


March 10, 1099. %ji^^M^, S'&?(pl> 

,aoiT?o TvnTk^ asTATa ccnrimj 

.©eJ f> ;tJ-eIweH fi4 , 'SBcr xK 

.evs 9361 ,00 .lov ,.a.5u 

Oi^ 3aJ"BJ/lot ni lonJirrtRxe srfi 'io aotioR etii aiotl lBoqq[& xiO 

tBtlsjoe^i, Qiit rxl 30Q aeen/xtO b 1c noi J'6Jn98Oi(i0'r oriJ^" vojjl^tv 

nol X-iSDi-oJofiivr 6 BB ^^iiwoile as ^iia eeartirio lo ol-^Ja IboJ:c:y« £»nf, 

no^JoO aJ^^&ax/i5:o<iaF.ijM drfJ Ic Xi£>ni t-aieJ-aiaoT: siU nc ,r[icJc rroodco 

-Xol 8£ l>l6/i texioiaaiaDioO srf^ ,veGI ,i- .iiBte b&,ii.ib ,Ci*C,sr-i ,elli'.' 


B to cioitBtaaee^qB^ srfJ^" bfi Xibjjt tloAi ecTiioesf) a^'OfioHqqA" 

" ,4^iB aaarUrfO 1o el^i^a Iso^gyJ' fcnfi •sBlXjjoecr erf* nJt 306 oeerrlrfD 

Of(»^ nl rtvTOria 30^ erf;t mcyfi. eonBiBeqqB ni "^IlBliei'Bjii BteYiJtfc 30!? eriT 

LeiiBlen ets rfd-ocf ,aaoft?T.ol11i> ertif snlinr. Jariitiwi-or: J-x/cf ^yonoiol^i 

or* Off* lo •BifcrtBffo'ieci sffd" riolriw lofcror £)Xi6ici or(* Mb . n?^ofc eb f';f 

nj" ,l)ljjow ,£>Ioa 9cf fcli/ow ^toiltrq-B eiB ejCiBint twf;?' r'oirfv cJ" ^seitisq 

JbftB drcsTcfBlaeT ort* , oiPrrn:eriJ"sj/€ .fcriBio' "soCt" ©rfd' eof ,ftoirTJ:qo -^ni 

naioiot niorf.f JbrtP afcoorj ym^sa ^"^ -^cqi/ aXiBm ilericf^ &mj ainsot Lqqe 

at X-xj-ci Off* ifirii aej£A;fe ifruBiJai;,, .-^cidTcwoo eciBa oiii' tiilvr et ebat* 

jfai Bs<J to loroo ?»ffi aJ: /folrtw ^kni eirld rf*lw afioos exf* rroc[x/ fiecpjis^a 

-niul X-xBJw f*ffu+ lc elqira^r eir;f vcf nworia as ,a;JfiBolIq:crB ycf fcaYoIcrwo 

fcxiB ,alo'j?«xcfajt3on oa oi iBsqqB J^on BBoJb sLi-bbx ort* Jbo^noooi? bA 

• .fcGonlltB ai isnlniBxe etiS to notaioot eiii ©loleiorfd- 

,Il9ija .H .0 (fiarraia) 


.GGGI ,01 rfoiBM 


Ex part e RICHAR.O^>0!T, 

I.IS.D., Vol. 66, page 387. 


On appeal from the action of the exaininer in refusing to 
register the compound word "Vin-Rye" as a trade-mark for whiskey upon 
the descriptive and deceptive character of the said word, the Commission 
er held as follows: - 

"The decision of the exajniner of trade-marks is affirmed." 

C. H. Duell, (Signed), 
Commissioner . 
March 18, 1899. 


'f '■» >" r-rr-rr, 


llOraHAHOlR ai'j&j, x^ 


VoG :3n/;rj ,r»S . loV , .Q.8M 

7\fii8wT:9t cti i9rtJ:nir>x9 9rf^ to aoiJo.o 9f{j moil Iii9qqr> nO 

3qj; \'9>l3xr{v/ ic': JI^£;flI-ybX3'rcf 
3xmftioO ,E)iov/ bxi53 gri: 

".beffliltlj:; ax 3:jItJ5m-9bBto 
' iani^B) ,Il9jjr .^ 
. 'lanoisaxnmoO 

"9YH-nxV" biov/ bauoqr.100 sf-Icr is^bx^s-:- 
3j3B?t.QriO 9Vljq909b bttB 9vloqxto39b 9ri. 

- :3V/0ll0l 3il bl9ri TS 

->fiinu-JX9 9rfi lo noxslo9b orfT" 

.0G8I ,81 rioix;!.! 




Ex p arte A. P. Richardson, 

Endorsed March 17, 1399 

On appeal from the action of the examiner in refusing to 

rerister the word "Epilepticid^" as a trade-i'.iark for a reinedy for the j 


cure of epilepsy and nervous diseases , upon the fround of zhe descrip- 
tive character of the word, and tmder the authority of ^x parte V'/'olf , ] 
00 0. G., 1271, the Conmiissioner held as follows: - , 

i "The decision of the exaniner of trade-marks is reversed." 1 

C. H. Duell, (Signed) 
Commissioner . 
Llarch 17, 1899. 







3 0402 00266 8871